Wherein Actress, Author and now BRAD BLOG Guest Blogger Lydia Cornell Attempts to Hold Alachua, FL Republicans' Feet to the Fire for Supporting and Profiting off the 'Political Porn' of One of America's Top Hate-Speakers...

Sex is sort of losing its appeal. Death is sexier these days, at least that's the impression I get from Ann Coulter, who makes a living calling for the "killing of Liberals" and repressing the free speech of Democrats. She may appear to be joking, but she is not. And Coulter actually claims to be a Christian. Like Pat Robertson and George W, she seems to take perverse delight in defining Christianity as the opposite of itself, so I suspect she belongs to the Antichrist trinity or the Taliban sect of Christianity.

I never mix religion with politics, but for Christ's sake, don't they know that Jesus was a Democrat? In fact, a bleeding heart liberal?!! The Great Peacemaker was the very essence of love and compassion; he was revolutionary in his softness and forbade vengeance of any kind. How the Christian right has twisted Christ's peaceful message is one of the riddles of our times. I've been bewildered to the point of jaw-gnashing agony at how certain fundamentalists can call themselves Christian, when they do not follow the teachings of Christ! I feel I'm going insane. Right after the 2004 election when You-Know-Who was elected, I actually developed a nervous tic in my left eye, like the Police chief in the Pink Panther, who was driven berserk by Inspector Clousseau. Of course there's no comparing the lovable Peter Sellers with the witless, war-mongering leader of the free world, but I don't want my eye twitch to come back so I'm trying to stop hating him so much. I think I figured out a way to talk to Ann Coulter: turn the other cheek and let her hit that one.

But it's so twisted and malevolent that Bush called himself a Christian and did the exact opposite of what Christ would do by rushing to war with 'shock and awe' --- and claiming he had an audience with God in this decision! The other day a plumber came to fix our sink and told me his wife has breast cancer; since I've had many miracles from prayer I told him I'd pray for her. Then I quickly apologized, "I'm a democrat --- but I pray." He laughed really hard and said, "Yeah well I think Bush is a war criminal."

Are we in the Twilight Zone? The only God I know is the God of Love. These right-wing "Christians" are engaged in the most dangerous perversion of Christianity I've ever seen! And despite what Cheney said recently defending our mission in Iraq --- all successful revolutions start from within; nothing is ever truly won by force. We could have gained allies in the underground and hovered over Saddam for years instead of carpet bombing precious Iraqi children, entire cities and looting ancient Babylonian museums. And by the way, whatever happened to that warehouse of weapons that was 'misplaced?' Does anyone remember what I'm talking about?

Anyway, Coulter seems to be a turn-on for certain young Republicans (the ones that go on field trips to hear Coulter spew hate..."with jokes" at anywhere between $16,000 and $30,000 a pop.) It was bad enough when our heroes were just anorectic models and athletes, but now we have a new generation of hate-speak-worshippers. It's true, hate sells, but I predict that the most exciting thing on the horizon is peace, even between Republicans and Democrats. Fighting and divisiveness are getting boring; 'moderate' is the new sexy. I mean in a world where everything is so intensely fringe, the only way to go is to the center, toward harmony. Think of Halle Barry, the most gorgeous mixture of black and white. Think of the 'Gang of 14': meeting in the middle, working things out, getting along --- it's ground-breaking! In other words, loving your enemy --- which is what The Great Peacemaker taught and what any good Christian would advocate.

So it was with peacemaking in mind --- that I returned the call from Bryan Harman, Vice-Chairman of the Alachua Republican Party...

Harman had hired Ann Coulter to speak to the Alachua Republicans at their "3rd Annual Ronald Reagan Black Tie and Blue Jeans BBQ" a few weeks ago. I had called and e-mailed both the chairman, Stafford Jones, and the vice chairman, Bryan Harman --- to find out if they could send me a video or audio of Coulter's speech, and also if they condoned her remarks calling for "the repression of free speech of Democrats".

The first response I got back was from Jones, who simply said in his e-mail that "Obviously Coulter was just using satire." Next, Harman called me back and we spoke for 45 minutes. We were warm and polite to each other. Harman knew me from TV and knew I was writing a book "How To Talk to Ann Coulter, If you Must." (Dan Borchers, a conservative Christian of Coulter Watch and Brad Friedman, investigative journalist of The BRAD BLOG are collaborating with me on this book.) Before I had the chance to ask Harman any direct questions, he defended the choice of Ann Coulter as the speaker for their BBQ ?fundraiser? --- saying they raised $20,000 for their party! (But they paid coulter $30,000 to speak; I don't get the math.) When I started to probe these numbers, he interrupted me to talk about how great the fundraiser was, how much fun it was to hear Coulter speak. I mean here was a true Republican icon in their backyard!

By the way, Borchers told me he saw Coulter speak, and that her cult-like charisma was mesmerizing. Students in the audience were enthralled by her; whipped into a frenzy, chanting her name. I wrote a book on the Trotsky assassination and did a lot of research on Josef Stalin. Terrifying similarities arose when I started researching Ann Coulter's narcissistic "cult of personality". She does a lot with a sneer and a chortle.

During my conversation with Harman, I was tempted to be confrontational, but made a conscious decision to remain objective and get inside the Republican mind-set. We don't need to lower ourselves to Coulter/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Savage's level just because anger and divisiveness get good ratings. We should rise above this mean-spirited tendency to have "contempt prior to investigation" as William James said. So I asked Mr. Harman what motivated him as a conservative and how his party could condone her "hate-speak". He laughed and said, "It's just satire, all in fun." He said that she was "exciting, entertaining and funny --- and extremely opinionated." As long as she wasn't boring, that's basically all that counted, he implied. Anyway, "she raised a lot of money for us!" They could have gotten some bland speaker, but she lights a fire under people. (Sort of like Jerry Springer --- she reduces one's intellect to bullying and confrontational grenade throwing --- the lowest common denominator.) "But she's just kidding around," he emphasized.

"But I don't believe she's joking even though she's smiling (when saying terrible things)," I said. "And not to accuse anyone of being a fascist --- so please don't take a soundbite out of this conversation and blow things out of context --- but the Nazis began their campaign for the holocaust with jokes and satire in order to dehumanize the Jews. Stalin did the same thing; lots of witty jokes demeaning everyone who displeased him. And some people actually said Stalin had hooves!

Harman said, "Well nowadays, you can't have a boring speaker. If you look at TV, everyone is an extremist." That's when I realized that moderates are actually so unusual these days, they are truly the new frontier.

"But Coulter talks fippantly, jokingly ? about 'killing liberals and democrats'," I continued. "Talking about killing people is just not that funny." Unless she's moving her Adam's apple at the same time, as a sideshow, I thought. "And the sarcasm she uses is dehumanizing. She uses double-think, saying 'liberals and traitors and terrorists; different stages of the same disease.' She advocates killing us!" Harman nervously laughed my comment off. And she is paid $30,000 to speak to impressionable young minds who have no sense of history or nuance.

Earlier in the week, I had sent an e-mail to Stafford Jones, the Chairman of the Alachua Republican Party requesting a video or audio copy of Coulter's speech. He ignored my request and instead sent me a link to an Amazon.com video of Al Franken using comedy to promote his new book The Truth, With Jokes, which shows Franken beating a Republican over the head and smashing a chair on his back. Mr. Jones said in his e-mail, "If you don't know what satire is, here's an example."

Shortly afterwards, they posted the following on their website:

I spoke to Brad Friedman of BRAD BLOG about this and he brought up a good point: "If the Alachua Republcan Party wants to give an example of satire, why don't they post the 'satirical' comments from Coulter about the First Amendment on their site, instead of referring people to Al Franken, a comedian, performing an obviously comedic stunt in an obviously comic sketch? It just doesn't equate."

So I wrote an e-mail back to Stafford Jones with this: "If you claim that her call to repress the speech of Democrats was 'satire' then demonstrate it by letting us see what she said. Al Franken in an obvious hoax commercial by no means excuses what Coulter said as being 'satire'. If that's what it was, let's see it. Please send me a copy of the video or audio."

Mr. Jones responded by completely ignoring my request for the tape. He said that he didn't have the time to discuss satire, he was too busy on his quest to build a community center for disadvantaged youth. He went off on what elitist snobs liberals are. If you want to see his actual letter in full, it's now posted right here.

Though Stafford Jones was very difficult, Bryan Harman couldn't have been nicer. We spoke about our personal beliefs, and we actually did see eye-to-eye on many issues. He said "not all Republicans are 'ethically challenged'; he told me he is on a local committee that is pro-environment and he works hard to institute social programs for the homeless. He wants to help the middle classes, is offended by corporate greed and doesn't always go with the party line. He said there are lots of old "Rhinos" --- the old democrats in Gainesville who get along great with the Republicans. Gainesville is basically a Democratic district. I should have asked him about their electronic voting results.

When he said he was a "family traditionalist" I said, "Listen, I'm a liberal and a mom and I am deeply anti-porn. Paris Hilton's Carl's Jr. commercial, and Britney Spears' writhing belly-button were both Republican agendas, and were not allowed in our house." He agreed that corporations promote the sleaze-factor for ratings --- and that talk shows need extremists to get higher ratings --- and so Ann Coulter is just part of the machinery of political porn. I told him "Democrats have family values too. I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO IS PRO-ABORTION! Democrats and reasonable people simply don't subscribe to a Nazi state governing our bodies or our intimate relationship with God. Pro-life to me means stop fighting senseless wars and killing our young soldiers and innocent Iraqi children."

I told him, "We want teachers, firefighters, police and soldiers to have higher salaries. And when you help the poor, you raise the whole standard of society. Everyone benefits." He wholeheartedly agreed. He then said,"Well I can't wait to read your book and hear you speak at an event. We need more Democrats who are not flame-throwers." I thought 'how odd for him to suggest we need more Dems are who are not flame-throwers after he's sponsored an event with the flame-throwingest Republican on the planet!' He asked me to please stay in touch and to please spell his name correctly. B-R-Y-A-N H-A-R-M-A-N was a pretty nice guy. When you put a heart and face on the enemy, you can really get inside them. Now if we could talk to them all, one-on-one, maybe we could get along.

You know how you wake up in life and become conscious? Well that hasn't happened to me yet, but I've had glimpses of a perfect universe. It has lots of trees but hardly any Bushes. Or Coulters, or O'Reillys. But the most spiritual growth happens with our enemies. That's why the Arabs and Israelis are next door to each other; they just don't get it yet --- and neither do we.

Maybe I'm not the "intellectual" Coulter is, because I often write from my heart not my head; it's warmer there, but at least it isn't cloudy. And at least I know the difference between 'spin' and a lie: Apparently $20,000. And that's math even I can figure out.

UPDATE FROM BRAD ON 11/28/05: Welcome Ann Coulter fans who've come here from her website! Please be sure to read about the petulant retaliation for this article as posted by your "courageous Christian conservative" hero Coulter!

{ED NOTE: If some of the comment number references nearer the bottom of this tread do not seem to match the referenced comment numbers, it is because there has been a very large number of spam attacks on this thread, and a very large number of multiple posts, probably from difficulties with the old software. I've tried to make the thread more readable for all you long-winded commenters. Carry on. --99}
.
.
.
.
.
People seem to be so used to hate speech from the right that it actually passes for moderation and calling them on it is labelled as nasty and extreme.

If he thought everybody was a flamethrower these days then he must be watching FOX news. There are very very few flamethrowing Dems. All the hate talk is coming from Coulter & Co. Why, even Hillary Clinton is saying we need to work with Bush. What could be more lukewarm than that? She's practically a DINO (Democrat In Name Only).

Now, that's not to say some of us couldn't throw a few flames. It's just that we believe in the traditional family value of being polite when we can.

That the Repubs would find it good to have someone talk that way to the young brownshirts, er kids, is pathetic. You don't inspire people to hate that way and then expect them not turn into monsters when they're older.

Christ is a riddle. He repaired the ear of the soldier who took him into custody, when Peter chopped it off, on the one hand. On the other, he said, "Think not that I came to bring peace, for I came not to bring peace, but war!"

As Ecclesiastes put it, there's a time for love and a time for hate, a time to heal and a time to kill, a time for peace and a time for war.

As I understand the evangelical Christian movement, it relies on the Book of Revelation, which suggests an Armageddon (endgame), after which Christ shall return and redeem mankind. Thus, whatever happens to advance that result (war, pestilence, brutality, famine, etc.) is holy and devoutly to be wished.

If this is a correct analysis, it can be an excuse for war. But it begs a question the evangelicals don't have an answer for. "What will Christ do or say after his return?" Would he say, "You killed to hasten my return, thus you are blessed..."??? Or would he say, "I came back to proclaim the error of your ways."???

I'll leave that to theologians to argue. I know what I think Christ would say.

Well Done! I agree that the the Republicans are so far removed from what Jesus Christ was teaching. That is the main reason I am not a Republican. You can't be a Republican; the stealers, destroyers, and haters of all that are not like them, AND follow the teachings of Christ. Democrats are lovers of all, not just those who fit into their selfish agenda's. I could get into a lengthy comment about it all, but you put it into words beautifully. Thank You.

Lydia, Thank you so much for writing your wise words. Ever since Bush and Co. came into power, I have been as perplexed as you are about my faith. George has made it very confusing to be a Christian...for what Christian would want to be associated with him and all of the death and destruction that he has brought about in the last 5 years. When I'm around my intellectual friends, I find myself apologizing for my beliefs, and when I'm around my Christian friends, I have to defend being a democrat and the very negative feelings that I have for Bush...dare I say Hate? It's pretty hard to separate hate for the actions of this man and his cohorts from hate for the people that have done so much to destroy this country and this planet. I can't help but think that they are bringing about the end times by their very actions...and maybe this is their intention. Thanks again, and please keep writing on Brad Blog. Can't wait to read your book.

It certainly sounds paradoxical that Jesus said He came to bring not peace but a sword, yet He also asked us to turn the other cheek when attacked.

For me, it's another reason not to take the Bible literally. But may we not assume that Christianity would not have survived as long as it has, through all the wars fought in its name and all the non-Christian thoughts and deeds that occur daily, unless Jesus was above all else the ultimate hope of mankind? We just haven't accepted His message of peace yet, and I seriously doubt that a literal interpretation of the Bible will be of much help; those that do interpret it literally seem the most unwilling or unable to follow Christ's teachings.

There is another aspect of the message of Christ that may reveal why the jihad war mentality of fundamentalists who profess christianity seem so at odds with the message.

They have chosen not to get the message in the first place:

"And the disciples said to Him, Why do You speak to them in parables?

He answered and said to them, Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but it is not given to them.

For whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance. But whoever does not have, from him shall be taken away even that which he has.

Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not; nor do they understand.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which said, 'By hearing you shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive; for this people's heart has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and they have closed their eyes, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.'

But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.

For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear what you hear, and have not heard them." (Mat 13:10-17)

The science of the study of the meaning of text, whether law, scripture, or poetry, is called hermeneutics, which is to be paired with proper exegesis.

However, even when sound hermeneutics and exegesis are used, extracting meaning that most would agree with is difficult.

This is true of law (e.g. constitutional interpretation), of scripture (e.g. Talmud, Koran, New Testament), and of scientific facts.

I would strongly disagree with one of those. The Koran, New Testament, Torah Bible and so on all awcknowledge God and do not deliberately denounce Christ or reject his teaching.

The Talmud absolutely does and there are constant references written in it that are easily demonizing of Christ, praising of Satan etc. Those are occult books.

"Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone.""

"Kallah 51a."The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah"

There a reason such books go the way of history, they are not fit in any Christian religion and are more the bread and butter of Aethiests. That said, each member or fundamentalist group will take a book and its chapters such as the Bible to such extremes they no longer recognize it.

This is why you have religious Jihad wars, and the game, and make no mistake it is a game keeps going on!

5 years passing and we still have not done anything, or caught the real perpetrators of 911. Instead we have been deceiving ourselves and chasing our tails.

As an independent, I have to strongly disagree with the fact there isn't political flamethrowers on both sides. I see comments from some democrats like Hillary as pure sellout, and others by fire-breathing democrats like Lautenberg as being far too extreme. Or telling the ACLU that they must remove "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill, etc. and going completely out of control with environmental laws.

There is just as much extremism on the left as the right, but only when they are balanced out does that appear. Coulter etc. are bad enough as it is, I just see the right approach to take here is moderation. They will never agree on everything but it encourages folks like Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore to go at it for weeks on end, if there is nobody just standing up and saying the way it is. Paul Hackett is my kind of guy to do that, and I liked how he just stood for something and fought all the way to the end.

We need more people like that in government, who aren't willing to compromise, but also aren't willing to put up typical political porn theater. That will be what changes the stakes.

"And by the way, whatever happened to that warehouse of weapons that was 'misplaced?' Does anyone remember what I’m talking about?"

Yes I do. Like most liberals, you have been misled by the liberal media. That story didnt have legs because what the liberals were claiming wasnt true.

Thats why the story dissappeared from your eyes, like so many have before and after that one. Once the story is proven to be bunk, your liberals friends dont cover it anymore because they cant tell people they were wrong, so the story just dissapears.

I was not advocating for or against any particular set of text which may or may not be called scripture.

My point is that even an enlightened and finely tuned process of hermeneutics and exegesis can lead to variations as to what the text means.

In law we deal with interpretation daily. That is what the discussion of the nominated Supreme Court Justice is all about. What method of hermeneutics and exegesis does he use to interpret the constitution?

The same inquiry is made when pastors of churches are selected.

The Sunni and Shia look at the same Koran but interpret it differently. Baptists and Methodists do the same with the bible text. Lawyers and judges do the same with the constitution.

Neocons and liberals do the same with recent history. The Pharisees and the Sadduccees had the same problem with the Pentateuch.

But when people use a reasonable and unbiased process of hermeneutics and exegesis there is a way to work things out.

As you know the Talmud is a collection of legal interpretations. One of the more favorable versions is the Babylonian Talmud, purportedly written in what is now Iraq.

One of the rules of interpretation developed in that line of jurisprudence, which rule I find to be better than our own, has to do with what we now call stare decisis.

Our modern version is not very clear, and I dare say not many could explain it because it is not very clear.

Our version of stare decisis is even in danger of getting down to raw power ... political power. When one party gets in the law is one way, but then the other party gets in and the law switches back.

The sanhedrin method was more advanced. It required not only more votes by current judges, but more wisdom and reasoning on their part.

In other words past sanhedrin decisions could not be overturned unless there were more votes by the judges of the current sanhedrin, and unless more wisdom was shown as a further reason to overturn that past decision.

Our jurisprudence has not really advanced to that stage yet, and our reasoning for overturning past decisions in the face of the concept of stare decisis is somewhat uncertain.

"Thats why the story dissappeared from your eyes, like so many have before and after that one. Once the story is proven to be bunk, your liberals friends dont cover it anymore because they cant tell people they were wrong, so the story just dissapears." - #13 Ricky

Um...Ricky? Perhaps you've forgotten about the 380 TONS of HIGH EXPLOSIVES (RDX & HDX) stolen/looted from the Al-Qaqaa Nuclear Facility.....

FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE, Oct. 28th 2004:

"Qaqaa was a well-known site even before the first Gulf War as a place where Iraqis were doing nuclear research," said Milhollin, who said he learned that in 1989 the Department of Defense had brought three Iraqis from the site to Oregon to train them in HMX detonations. ''It was certainly a leading candidate to be inspected after the first Gulf War and to be secured after the second."

"The location of the explosives at Qaqaa had been so well known to inspectors that they appeared routinely in reports written by ElBaradei to the Security Council."

"the disappearance of the HMX, or ''High-Melting Point Explosive," caused particular alarm because the lightweight substance is twice as powerful as an ordinary plastic explosive and is not easily set off by an accident as other substances are. That makes it the perfect detonator for a nuclear device, or in attacks on large buildings or planes"

"at least three major bombing sites in Iraq tested positive for HMX or RDX"

Ricky Says: "That story didnt have legs because what the liberals were claiming wasnt true."

Well Little Ricky, because of Chimpy the Sock Monkey's idiocy (with Value Added Idiocy by trolls like YOU and a HUGE assist by a PROPAGANDIST MEDIA OWNED BY REPUGNANTCANS) this story's not the only thing missing it's legs, but it's untold numbers of US Soldiers, Iraqi women and children who are missing legs, arms, feet and THEIR LIVES!!

The reason this story "disappeared" is our Chicken-Shit Media has been cowering from our Idiot King from 9-11 on and has been (up until recently) cancelling any actual reporting in favor of the "Missing White Chick of the Day" fluff....

#4
> As I understand the evangelical Christian movement, it relies on the Book of Revelation, which suggests an Armageddon (endgame), after which Christ shall return and redeem mankind. Thus, whatever happens to advance that result (war, pestilence, brutality, famine, etc.) is holy and devoutly to be wished.

You are not even close to being correct in your last sentence.

> "What will Christ do or say after his return?"

Judge!

Jesus already came and showed us the way to Heaven. However, much of the Bible is about His second coming. You will only know Jesus when you are born again. God is a God of love but He is also a God of wrath. Too many people overlook the full character of God. God destroyed many a nation and He used other nations to do so.

> war, pestilence, brutality, famine

These are just signs that the "end times" are just "beginning." It is nothing that Christians look at gleefully, it is just the facts.

When Lydia writes "for Christ’s sake" she is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Do I support someone like Pat Robertson? No way! He says some very absurd things!

Do I think the earth is going to end soon? No!

Do I think that most of the leftists and left kook fringe are filled with HATE? Yes.

Paul says: "You guys talk peace but you really have no peace in your hearts."

Would Paul say we had "peace in our hearts" if:
(A) If we were IN FAVOR of an unjust WAR against
a country that had NOTHING to do with 9-11?

(B) If we were MORE SUPPORTIVE of
a "president" who CHEATED his way into office,
not once, but TWICE?

(C) If our outrage at the MASS KILLINGS of more
than 100,000 Iraqi citizens, over 2,000 US
soldiers and the gruesome MAIMING of
hundreds of thousands more DOESN'T match
Repugnantcan outrage over Clinton's sex
scandal?

(D) If we were LESS bothered by the blatant
conflicts of interest of a fraudulent
'administration' dominated by BIG OIL and
WAR PROFITEERS like CheneyBurton and the
LIES they used to justify the chaos, anarchy,
murder and TORTURE they've inflicted IN OUR
NAME??

Paul, has it occurred to you that we are "filled with HATE" for Chimpy the Sock Monkey and the rest of his puppeteers because we ARE opposed to election fraud? Because we ARE in favor of COMPETENT AND ACCOUNTABLE LEADERSHIP?
Because we ARE extremely disturbed by our Idiot King's having RUINED our national reputation as a Nation of Laws who USED TO OPPOSE torture and 'PRE-EMPTIVE WAR"??

I am wondering when God is going to destroy this nation, since we have destroyed so many, guess it must be our turn. I believe my God works thru people so perhaps bushco is his tool. I just don't understand the mentality of those that think America has a monopoly on God....wonder what God thinks about that. We are the chosen people, so take that God. We are JerUSAlem. M4 (who also believes God has a sense of humor)

Biblical scholars have looked at the original Greek text and compared it to the King James version to see if the translation was done correctly. In many cases the mistranslation (or undertranslation) of words/phrases makes all the difference in the world. Another thing to look at is the meaning of certain "slang" terms from the historical period.

For instance, the phrase "turn the other cheek" --- (See this discussion by a biblical scholar and former Peace Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace.)

[snip] One of the most misunderstood passages in all of the Bible is Jesus' teaching about turning the other cheek. The passage runs this way: "You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. And if anyone takes you to court and sues you for your outer garment, give your undergarment as well. If one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two."

... When Jesus says, "Do not resist one who is evil," there is something stronger than simply resist. It's do not resist violently. Jesus is indicating do not resist evil on its own terms. Don't let your opponent dictate the terms of your opposition. If I have a hoe and my opponent has a rifle, I am obviously going to have to get a rifle in order to fight on equal terms, but then my opponent gets a machine gun, so I have to get a machine gun. You have a spiral of violence that is unending.

Jesus is trying to break that spiral of violence. Don't resist one who is evil probably means something like, don't turn into the very thing you hate. Don't become what you oppose. The earliest translation of this is probably in a version of Romans 12 where Paul says, "Do not return evil for evil." [snip]

There is much more information at the link that will shed some light on what that passage in the bible means.

... I'm with you , MERIFOUR ! The psuedo-pious hubris that BushCo. has displayed must vex our Lord mightily , and one must wonder how much more the Father can take , before it's time to take the ' Chris-stains ' to the woodshed ! Perhaps he already has an emissary on the way - is that not a arch-angel on the horizon ? His name is Fitzgerald , Patrick Fitzgerald ( cue 007 theme song ) ! ...

The actual quote is this: "Think not that I came to bring peace on the earth, for I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Not WAR.) The sword is a metaphor. Just a few verses earlier in the chapter (Matt 10:16) Jesus says this: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

You have to read the entire chapter to understand that Jesus is talking about an invisible sword used to sever ties to people who are not hearing the message.

By not bringing PEACE, he is referring to the agitation which will naturally occur when people's belief systems are challenged.

That is true too, & makes sense. While the Bible is a good book and so is the Koran for teaching of God and not denouncing him, it frequently is mis-interpreted beyond rational understanding.

With that, the law is also misinterpeted. I don't really follow any book except the Book of Mormon, because in its most base form it has the strongest amount of truth foretold in it. It also has that feeling to me of sacred ancient writing.

By the way, this is what has brought about the Jack Abramoff investigation....

To #17 --- when I said "For Christ's sake" --- it was a play on words: I was making fun of myself mixing religion with politics.

PLease read more on the true Christ and keep seeking. The God of judgment and wrath is not at all the God of Love. This is based on an anthropomorphic God, that is an archaic concept. The kingdom of heaven is within you. It's not far off into the future, it's here now if we wake up and see it (or put on a new pair of glasses.)

I don't know if it is the "evangelical" movement as such, but you are correct that there is a segment of the Christian movement that believes that we don't have to be responsible for anything other than believing in the return of Christ - no responsibility to the environment, no personal responsibility (as Americans) to the world as a whole, among other things, because when Christ does return, all will be made well again.

Gary North has explained this fundamentalist perspective and its impact on our foreign policy in this article, well worth reading. Scary thing is, he says 20 million Americans ascribe to this philosophy - Christ that's half of California, a force to be reckoned with. This explains the bestseller popularity of the LaHaye "Left Behind" series.

Dear Lydia Cornell,
I just want to show my appreciation on your article on the Brad bog, and to warn you want you are in for!
Sadly there are those who first looked at Ann Coulter and found her superficially attractive, and somehow that bought validity to her message?
In this day and age as I trust you all ready know that "sex sells" and if your sex appeal helps to get an alternative voice to Ann Coulter, then by all means "you go girl"!

PS in no means does this statement makes any offense or takes appreciation away from the likes of Randi Rhodes, Jeanne Garofolo, Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow, Arianna Huffington or last but definitely not least Amy Goodman! All great women with voices for truth and of conscience!
Welcome to the club and probably to the Bill O'Reilly's Black list!

World War II was won by force. The holocaust death camps were closed by force. The Japanese military dictatorship was defeated by force. Israel stopped a second holocaust by meeting the Arab agression with force. The communist threat was stopped by a show of force.

War is not a good thing. Unfortunately, there are people and ideologies who can only be defeated by force. Sad, but true.

Fred, #38, i don't think you understand the nuance in the sentence you quoted.

no one is pro-abortion in the sense that you assign to it, i.e., no one wants or promotes abortions. the precise way to describe it is that no Democrat is pro-abortion, but PRO-CHOICE.

to be even more precise, Dems believe in and work for a society in which abortions are safe, legal and rare... rare because there are more options in place, both before and after the situation of considering an abortion, that don't require the government intruding upon or controlling the bodies of its citizens.

those who are pro-choice hope that a woman would NOT choose to have an abortion --- thus the nuance in the sentence you quote --- but grasp the reality that our society is not very supportive of women or children who have already been born.

pro-choice means a woman has the right of sovereignty over her own body and the direction of her life. thus the need for choice to remain, in safety.

do you see the difference?

obviously, Cornell did not take the time to explain this in her article, as it is self-evident. the term pro-CHOICE has been around for decades, but perhaps that nuance is still not clear, even after all of these years.

So, let me get this straight. Just so we are all on the same page. Jesus was a pro abortion liberal. Was for punishing people more for stealing cable than raping children, and in fact defended the practice (see the ACLU defend NABLA on Google TODAY!!), and in general voted for things before voting against them all over the place.

No, that is not the Jesus I read about in my Bible. Are you sure your note a Unitarian?

A note on satire, I realize I cannot write an opus to the effect here. One way to tell if someone is waxing political satire is when they say something with a smile and soon after others laugh. Like when Dean said Republicans are mean hateful white people or Theresa Heinz-Kerry said Laura Bush never held a real job (she was a teacher for the one person by now who didn't know). Oh wait, no one laughed after those remarks.

In other words, clean up your own backyards before getting on people about their speech. I can find nothing more infuriating than hearing that because I am a Republican than I am obviously not a Christian.

Oh, and by the way, EVERY democrat I know is pro abortion, I have no idea how you can say the contrary. And I know this because I talk to them, in fact I try to convert them from the dark side. I even got a few to go exercise one of their rights endowed on them by their Creator in that little known document call the Bill of Rights. They went shooting with me. And no death or destruction ensued, imagine that.

So, next time you feel the need to sling some mud, like you must think Jesus would totally be “down” for along with the rest of you liberals at least think about it and have some humor. I know you think your funny with this whole Jesus is a liberal thing. Your just not getting people to laugh somehow. Try calling Stalin, or Lennon (not the one associated with the bugs, er beetles but the other one), or Mao a liberal. Oh wait, that’s not funny, they were. Well, I am sure you can find other people. Henry the 8th? No, not funny. Gimme a minute, I know I can think of a funny real liberal……..

Ah, yes, Ms. Cornell, because using Christ's name as part of a bad joke is certainly not "in vain. Thank you for enlightening me....

Actually, Des, we aren't on the same page. According to the "Jesus was liberal" viewpoint, Jesus was also in favor of theft, oppresion of His followers, and dictators.

For those who wonder which Democrats could possibly be "flamethrowers", I suggest this page--http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002069.htm--and also refer them to Memo-gate, Micheal Moore, everything Al Franken ever said or thought, Nina Burleigh of NPR (who said that she hopes Jesse Helms or his grandchildren get AIDS), the lady who expressed her hope that Clarence Thomas dies early of heart disease (and the several magazines which featured him as a dopey-grinning, foot-shuffling Sambo), and pretty nearly anything else ever said by a Democrat.

Likewise, if you don't know any Democrats who are pro-abortion, why do they continually strive to make it easier to obtain abortions? Why do they push to make the rest of the citizens pay for them? Why do ideas such as a 24-hour waiting period or making abortion mills provide information about alternatives to abortion drive them into such a frenzy? They don't want women to have a choice which includes abortion if they feel it necessary, they want women to have abortions. And, for that matter, why won't abortion advocates ever even whisper the name "Margaret Sanger"? There is a reason the first five abortion mills were set up in Harlem, after all. Why do the same people who whine incessantly about the disproportionatly black prison population show never a care in the world about the percentage of black infants murdered?

And Blow Me, I'm Irish, let me ask you, if there was so much election fraud involved, then how come you can't produce a single person that was eligible to vote and didn't because of this supposed fraud? You lost, twice in a row; the first time after such efforts as lying about the times polls closed, handing out cigarettes to homeless people in exchange for votes, and the ever-famous Chicago Necromancy. You lost, you tried to steal the election, you failed. Get over it.

But finally, am I the only one who finds it hilarious that Ms. Cornell claims that Ann Coulter finds death arousing, attacks her faith, calls her a fascist (and no, that "I'm not calling anybody fascist, but she's just like the Nazis" bit didn't fool anybody), compares her to Stalin, implies that she wouldn't exist in a perfect world... and tells us that Ann Coulter "spews hate"?

You must wait a few days to buy a handgun to protect yourself but hey, feel better knowing that after you are raped you can abort the child after mere minutes of waiting. Even if you are not one of the many (ahem, less than 1%) of women getting abortions because they were raped or their health was at risk by the pregnancy, we will make sure you feel at home during your stay. We will even tell you that it didn't even look like a child, only much smaller and cuter. With little feet and hands, in fact it was sucking its thumb when we ripped it apart with pliers in a "medical" procedure more akin drawing and quartering than anything the Hippocratic Oath ever intended.

Enjoy, we will pay for it and give you a cookie if your good.

Oh, just in case you think I am missing the nuance of the liberal "thought process" allow me to retort.

A woman may have sovereignty over her body, but the person inside her does too. Need a Bible reference for you liberal apostles? Upon Elizabeth hearing Mary’s greeting the baby in her womb “leapt for joy.” Luke 1:41,44. The live child. They don’t turn into kids mere minutes from birth. And you have no right to destroy them before they are born any more than afterwards.

A baby can feel joy, suck its thumb and kick your ribs, but has no civil rights in this country. If that is what you call nuance you are truly sick and deserving of all the things Ann says.

^ Well. It's a good thing the Bible and the Constitution are not the same document. Otherwise we'd all be screwed for working on Sundays.

You "pro-lifers" are such selfish people. Don't you realize the women who are having abortions can't afford their child or don't WANT it? It's cruel to force a child to grow up in a home where they will be unloved or neglected. Yes, people shouldn't be that way --- they should love their children and they should be responsible human beings. But there is idealism and then there is reality. Not all homes are good for children. Some children would be better off being aborted. Hey, I don't like the idea of abortion; I think it's despicable. So you know what? I don't plan on ever having one.

Anyway, great blog Lydia. I find it fascinating that conservatives can be so obsessed with being "good," "righteous" people when in actuality they are the most hateful, selfish ones of them all.

under you premise, since the "child;" you do call it a child, in full acknowledgment that it is a human life, i would not be loved or cared for, therefore outweighing the quality of life to life itself. Soo, every homeless person, orphan, hell any person who is unloved and neglected should have a pair of scissors jammed in the back of their neck to open a hole to insert a tube and have their brains sucked out. Well, this is all according to your standard of saying who should live or die. God is vengeful, ask the Egyptians before the Exodus, you'll find that in the Jewish book of Religeon as well.

"pro-choice means a woman has the right of sovereignty over her own body and the direction of her life. thus the need for choice to remain, in safety."

What if the woman is 36 weeks old and in her mother's womb? We (conservatives) would like for both mother and baby to have choices. You can call it something that sounds nice, like choice, but in reality that little girl has no choice if her mom is so selfish that she would rather have her baby killed than make the sacrifices required to bring her into the world and love her.

"do you see the difference?"

no. no matter what you call it, there is a unique, wonderful little girl, created by God who will never get to see her mom or dad and smile.

Since about 95% of all abortions are performed for birth control purposes, that "poor and downtrodden mothers need abortions" is just a lie. It is really about excusing women who have already made a choice(having sex when they don't want to have a child) who want to escape from the responsibility of that choice. There is no doubt that the child is a human being. The individual DNA combination that defines a person is formed in the first instant after fertilization, and continues to express itself until the death of that individual. If you must use the "f" word(fetus), at least call it a human fetus.

In most states, if someone causes a woman to miscarry through assault or kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with the murder of the child (meaning someone who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders--both mother and child.).

In those same states, that mother could herself go down to an abortion mill and pay someone to murder her child, and this is a 'choice'.

This is rather telling. Either the fetus is a lump of tissue, no different from a wart or a tumor, which a woman may have removed at her convenience, or the fetus is a human being, entitled to the right to live the same as any other human being.

If I were to kill a woman's unborn baby against her will, it's murder. If I do so at her request, it's a choice.

In other words, that crucial decision--whether a fetus is or is not a human being--is, according to the law, judged solely on what is convenient for someone else.

It is unfortunately not uncommon in human history for one class of humans to decide that another class of humans is not actually human. The results of this decision are never good.

But while I've got this window open, a few quotes--from this very article...

"Death Is Sexier Than Sex (to Ann Coulter)"

" I suspect she belongs to the Antichrist trinity or the Taliban sect of Christianity"

"Of course there's no comparing the lovable Peter Sellers with the witless, war-mongering leader of the free world"

"I wrote a book on the Trotsky assassination and did a lot of research on Josef Stalin. Terrifying similarities arose when I started researching Ann Coulter's narcissistic "cult of personality"."

"Democrats and reasonable people simply don't subscribe to a Nazi state..."

"And not to accuse anyone of being a fascist --- so please don’t take a soundbite out of this conversation and blow things out of context --- but the Nazis began their campaign for the holocaust with jokes and satire in order to dehumanize the Jews. Stalin did the same thing; lots of witty jokes demeaning everyone who displeased him." And again, "I'm not calling her a fascist, but she's just like the Nazis" ain't foolin' anybody.

And the punchline.....

"Maybe I’m not the "intellectual" Coulter is, because I often write from my heart not my head..."

If that's the kind of stuff that comes from Ms. Cornell's heart... well, y'all draw your own conclusions.

I'm interested to learn more about the connections between crude satire and nascent Nazism...seems like a great description of Jon Stewart to me.

Frankly, I understand how right-wing Christianity has taken hold of a large portion of the populace. I'm a Jew from NYC (persona non grata at the megachurch, perhaps), and I've witnessed American capitalist secularism at its most depraved and depressing. The racism, elitism, and out-and-out stupidity (coming from educated people, of course) in this city could drive anyone into the arms of what appears to be an opposite lifestyle.

Until we realize that "secular" doesn't mean sophisticated, that "liberal" is not another way of saying "compassionate human being," until we acknowledge that the "red" and "blue" cultures share the same--universally American--problems, and the same enemies, we'll never get anywhere.

Ok, so we are now in the business of deciding if someone has a right to life based on what we think their quality of life will be. So why then, do liberals support life sentences instead of the death penalty for crimes in our society of the most heinous nature? They are doomed to being gang raped and living in small cells the rest of their lives, why not end the pain?

Deciding to destroy such an innocent thing as a child simply because you don’t want the responsibility is disgusting, reprehensible, and contemptible. There are no words in any language strong enough to describe such vileness. Imagine the horror the world would feel to know that just one newborn child was mercilessly torn limb from limb. If it were taped, the terror on the little things face would haunt us with any semblance of a conscience the rest of our lives. Then you can understand our horror when we know this happens to children just a few months earlier in their development. 30000 of them a year.

But apparently, the old Chinese adage is answered in liberals. If a child screams in utter pain, and confusion, but no one who cares can hear it, does it really matter? Your answer is, “not if it inconveniences me.”

Ms. Cornell claims to be writing a book about Ms. Coulter. I believe it a transparent attempt to trade on Ms. Coulter's well-deserved fame. If Ms. Cornell is really interested in discovering what Ms. Coulter believes, she need only order Ms. Coulter's books from Amazon.com. She will find, if she dares read them, reasoned and footnoted examples, by the hundreds, of leftist mendacity and treachery. She will also find humor and satire throughout.

I am willing to bet Ms. Cornell has no interest in acquiring the video she so fervently desires for a dispassionate look at the truth. She's hoping to take comments out of context (a favorite liberal ploy) to attempt a smear of Ms. Coulter.

It is, to me, entirely comical that liberals who refuse to read Ms. Coulter's books or listen to Limbaugh rush to condemn them as hate-spewing, evil ideologues. They have no idea how ridiculous it makes them look. They are true believers in the drivle fed to them by the mainstream media and its action arms, the Democrat Party and leftist academe.

First, I'd like to address the purposefully blind comment of "the hate filled right"(as opposed to the imaginary hate filled left?) Let's stop pretending that the Left isn't every single bit as virulent as the right. You yourself mock Ann Coulter's adam's apple. So don't hide behind some ridiculous facade of being nice or not "sinking to her level". You just shot yourself in the foot. For every Limbaugh, you guys have a Michael Moore, for every Coulter a Dowd, and for every Hannity an Al Franken. Anyone else Remember Al Franken's strategy for dealing with Republicans? Walk right up and say "Fuck you", it's in Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Michael Moore's books are filled with hate spew. Dowd has no more problem spinning events than does Coulter. And let's not forget the redubbing of Karl Rove as "Turdblossom" by James Carville. I've heard so much hate from both sides that I'm sick of ANY pundit saying "Oh, all the hate comes out of the right (or left)". People who try and say all the hate comes out of one side is one of two things....either a. too stupid to be in political debate or b. (to steal a phrase from Mr. Franken) a lying liar.

Second, this idiotic idea that Jesus Christ would be a bleeding heart liberal, there's no way anyone actually believes that. Jesus would wash his hand of both parties. Jesus may have been the embodiment of love, but he had NO PROBLEM shooting someone down. Remember the flipping of the money changers tables? Besides the fact that I know Jesus would abhor abortion (and if you don't know any pro-abortion democrats...you don't know very many democrats), I also know he'd have no problem decrying Al Sharpton for racifying every single issue on the table. Coincidently, I believe he'd slam the pro-death penalty people. Jesus's message wasn't molify or middlize, but instead hang to your beliefs despite persecution and hate. So let's drop the "Jesus would've been a bleeding heart liberal" crap.

Three as for getting paid for appearances...oh dear God the horror...I have yet to meet anyone on the political, or celebrity scenes who DIDN'T charge for their services. Al Franken certainly does. And Michael Moore, dear God our college tried to get him, but he was far too pricy for our tastes. So let's get off of that lame brain note. She charges to appear, big whoop. So does everyone else. No exceptions. Not even the exceptionally funny Bill Maher does it for free so move on.

And finally, the Iraqi war. Quite possibly the only issue I agree with our President on. Democrats said it themselves when they say "we should've taken him out ten years ago". Yes we should've. But you know what? This isn't a slam against the war, but rather a defense of it. Yes, we have left a man in power we should've taken out ten years ago. I'm so sick of hearing the war described as evil for "the death of innocents". The carpetbombing of cities simply did not happen. That's pure lie and spin. Two of the things I thought our wonderful author hated. Just admit it, you wouldn't support this war under any circumstances. That's what your objection is. As for the simply half-hearted assertion that nothing is ever won by force, you must've missed a good chunk of history. Let's see, there was the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, and the first Desert Storm. All of those were solved by force and not by an inside dissent. You know, though, you have a point, Saddam wasn't immortal, he had to die someday. And then one of his sons would've taken over and I suppose we would've begun again. Even assuming his sons were saints (and they weren't), that could've been twenty or thirty years down the road. Since you decry the nazi state so much, I don't understand why you don't support our removal of Saddam. People dying for speaking political dissent isn't more nazism than the government trying to illegalize abortion? If you can't make that distinction you have your head firmly planted up your ass. This is a regime that openly raped and murdered its populous. So in essence all you've said here is that you don't support military action for anything, no matter how evil the tyrant, no matter how aggregious the human rights violations. Would you stand by as your neighbor raped and murdered his wife? I'd hope not, because I tell you now, that is NOT christian. And that is NOT christ like love. That is more of a sick twist on Christ's message than anything Coulter has EVER said. But to address your argument that it would've fizzled out one more time. Look at Rwanda. The tribal massacre of Hutu and Tootsie. Eventually an inner dispute came up, and helped stop the killing. But guess what, they had to act WITH FORCE. And by the time the inner dispute rose up to stop the killing more than a million people lay dead. If that doesn't fill you with some shame in your policy, then I see no value in your input in foreign or domestic policy. You don't give a damn about the Iraqi people or any other people, you just don't ever want to go to war, EVER.

I am reminded of Sean Hannity, when he thought the cameras stopped rolling. He ranted for almost ten minutes about how Democrats were the root of all hate spew, and conservatives were all sunshine. Then he said (cause he thought the cameras sstopped rolling I assume), "God I hate these fucking people." That's what this is. You rant about how mean spirited Ann Coulter is, and how rude, then remark on her adam's apple and call her a man. You have no crediblity. You slam her for taking money for appearances, and a paltry 20g (which is nothing for a public figure by the way), ignoring the fact that so many on your side do the same thing. You cannot be taken seriously. You say Jesus would politicize himself and offer forth the ridiculous idea that no democrats support abortion. And I say you are blind. And finally you rant about how evil it is to send troops to Iraq, and instead we should just stand by and let innocent people suffer. And you show little compassion for those who are being raped and murdered instead harping on Republicans for twisting Christ's values. You are every bit a leftist version of Coulter. You lie, you spew hate, you spin, you name call, and you put forth stupid ideas on the platform of tolerance. To summarize my thoughts of you, I will take the words of Christopher Hitchens, a brilliant liberal, one who is worried more about the real way of the world than partisan politics, and a hell of a lot closer to the center than you yourself.

"To describe this piece as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this article as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Your writing is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery. You prefer leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. If you had had your way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If you had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed. "

It was originally said about Fairenheit 9/11, but it fits you about as well as it fits Moore.

Only on one point may I disagree. The rest was excellent, and worthy of applause. The death penalty has long been a misunderstood issue with Christians. I blame this mainly on our last pope. He had a personal opinion, and unfortunately he did not explain the distinction between that opinion and the position of the Church through the centuries and why it has been as it is with the rest of us.

We have a profound respect for life, but in the case of capital crimes, we are respecting more the life unjustly taken. Only capital punishment can be a fitting sentence for those that commit such a thing. Only that will show the gravity of it to those who might consider doing it themselves. Strictly as a Christian thing, murder is one of the sins the cry to Heaven for justice. We are personally responsible to forgive the individual no matter how grievous the offense, for we will be judged in part of how forgiving we are. But the responsibility of the state to enforce its laws remains. Remember, the Old Testament says “an eye for an eye.” Did Christ replace that law? No, he simply clarified our new personal expectations while leaving the original law intact.

Ah, but what about the story of the woman being stoned as a whore by the mob, and Christ intervened? Simple, mob rule is not rule of law. Many of those holding stones had frequented her business or those of others like her, hence “let those of you without sin cast the first stone.” They were hypocrites, and He knew it.

Let us look instead to the rest of the New Testament. Interestingly, Christ never spoke against the occupying Romans. Instead he taught to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” In fact, when He was being condemned himself he would not speak to Herod, for he was simply a puppet king, but would submit to the authority of Pontius Pilate, as his authority had been given him by God. He accepted his sentence, never spoke against the ghastly practice they used to eliminate their enemies and criminals.

So, what Cornell says is wrong from a Christian standpoint. Jesus was not the great peacemaker. He made no peace with warring factions. He didn’t even entertain the idea that the Romans had no right to be where they were. This is part of why the Jews rejected him. Their past saviors (ie David, Moses) had delivered them from temporal suffering. He did not come for that.

We could use that example all over the place with current events. Such as, a lack of respect for the president by a Christian is to thumb your nose at the authority of God.

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]...
Eat it up
said on 11/29/2005 @ 1:42 pm PT...

Is there even a single man on the left? It doesn't appear so. Being irrational and inherently dishonest, leftism isn't attractive to most men. Except the very evil, of course. But then you all do have your favorites, like the 5 cm self-abusing traitor/child-molestor/drug addict/rapist/bribe-taker/draft-dodger, don't you.

Funny how the Democrats and other liberals want to apply the blow torch of Jesus' teaching to the conservative side of politics but don't apply it to their own. Where were you guys when Clinton committed adultery and lied about it under oath? Isn't important to you that Clinton's dealing over Whitewater were so foul? And what's the difference between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice? I'm sure the millions of babies vacuumed out of their mothers wombs, or cut up in utero, understand the difference, even if I don't. Its like being pro-choice on murder, or drug dealing, or pedophilia. No one wants them, but...if it works for you, why not?

None of the sins of Ann or the republicans, even if true and mostly they are not, would measure up to the surrender to Jihad that democrats, except for LIeberman, are urging.
To the left, the danger from terrorism is distant but the danger of losing even more political power is real and terrifying. The thought of having to get a real job.....

Garry, #65:
>Where were you guys when Clinton committed adultery and lied about it under oath?

exactly where you were. mortified. but nonetheless, differing from you in that his repulsive actions did not rise to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors', the distraction of the country from more pressing issues, and millions upon millions of federal dollars diverted to the big show.

>Isn't important to you that Clinton's dealing over Whitewater were so foul?

of what was proven, of course it was important. abuse of power and criminal wrongdoing are always wrong and must be ferretted out, regardless of political persuasion, and accorded appropriate punishment or restituion. this is why the current round of indictments is important.

>And what's the difference between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice?

it appears that the only anti-abortion folks on this thread are all men. perhaps that's why it's harder to grasp this concept.

>Its like being pro-choice on murder, or drug dealing, or pedophilia.

no, it's not. put down your paper tigers.

if you can't, at the very least, comprehend the difference, this will be argued in perpetuity.

there are vast numbers of good people who share your beliefs. but Dems do not share your solution. outlawing abortion will not make it go away. it will reduce the number of abortions, somewhat, but not the occurence. it has been so, for thousands of years. sadly.

addressing the problems in society and culture that lead women to make this choice is the only real solution for creating a world in which such a heartbreaking dilemma never need occur at all.

Ann Coulter's reader base are mostly furtive types who lurk in teen chat rooms or who read Ann in dark dank little rooms on 13 inch monitors in 16 point type while cluthing their pathetic little IQ's/manhood in one hand while slobbering Slim Jims with the other and IM'ing eachother on what the meaning of the latest decolletage she falunts means (10 inches= important Bush charm initiative?). They need lizard skins on their mice or joysticks because thier hands are too slick from popping pustules while drooling on the keyboard as well...banal, unimaginative, the epitomy of intellectual and spiritiual sloth, their reward for their avarice and sloth has been had in this life not in the next, they will be harshly judged for they judge harshly of others, uninquiring, uninspiring, (Thank God) such are the minions of hate speech.

Intereting analogy, Rheincoat, except that using such terms as "popping pustules", "drooling on the keyboard", "banal, unimaginative, the epitomy of intellectual and spiritual sloth", "cluthing (sic) their pathetic little IQ's/manhood", and then you want to speak of the "minions of hate speech?" Maybe you'd have been a little less harsh about minions of hate speech if you were aware that you were demonstrating yourself to be among that number. Besides that, I'm clearly more intelligent than yourself and if men could get pregnant I'd have Ann Coulter's baby--so don't be too surprised if nobody believes you.

And Des, check the numbers. women oppose abortion more than men. In fact, abortion's greatest support comes from men aged 18-34--'playah' age, in other words; the guys most likely to end up paying child support.

My goodness! Either you're the ditziest liberal space cadet in human history, or this is the best political satire ever created. Scrappleface, IMAO and Iowahawk combined couldn't lampoon leftist bloggers better than you have.

My personal favorite:

I’ve been bewildered to the point of jaw-gnashing agony at how certain fundamentalists can call themselves Christian, when they do not follow the teachings of Christ! I feel I’m going insane. Right after the 2004 election when You-Know-Who was elected, I actually developed a nervous tic in my left eye, like the Police chief in the Pink Panther, who was driven berserk by Inspector Clousseau.

Wow! Just for that, your monthly check from Karl Rove will have a little something extra.

Ann Coulter uses sarcasm to debunk liberals. She is good at it and that is why she is so hated by them. Liberals use hatred all the time, but because they are so convinced of their self righteousness, they consider their own hatreds some how worthy. Witness African Americans who call themselves conservatives. Michael Steele, Lt. Gov. of Maryland has endured racist abuse from liberals for weeks now and there has not been a peep from the Great White Liberals in the media about this. Ted Rall's most recent cartoon is hate filled and venomous towards our military in Iraq. Not Bush, not Cheny, but towards the men in uniform. Find it and tell me how it makes you feel. And yet liberals wonder why people question their patriotism.

Robert Byrd. One time recruiter for the KKK. Still uses the "N word" in public discourse. Does it get any attention? Of course not. He's a Democrat. A "liberal." One time head of the senate. Are those words hate speech? If Trent Lott uttered them, then yes. If Robert Byrd does, then no.

Michael Moore has called the death squads in Iraq, the "minutemen" of that country. The same men who give out toys to children that then explode in the children's faces. If they are the patriots of that country, then our soldiers must be the oppressive English. To me, that is a despicable comparison. It gets yawns from liberals.

Dick Durbin calls our camps like the gulags and Nazi concentration camps. Putting aside that the liberals of that time did not mind gulags, his word choice is instructive. He cried croc tears when called on it. Very big of him.

There have been numerous calls for the killing of GW. One was in a play that was well received by the intelligentsia in NYC. Funny, how that doesn't fall into the left's definition of hate speech.

At the many "peace" marches we saw over time, we viewed numerous signs equating Bush and Hitler. Even as actual fascists were blowing up the Madrid trains. At the same marches, one would have had to search high and low for a sign even vaguely criticizing Saddam, also an actual, unreconstructed fascist. A man whose mass graves did not get on fraction of the media attention of Abu Ghraib. To the left, such as Ramsey Clark, Saddam is better than Bush.

In answer to one poster's query, yes, we do believe the media is liberal, or mostly so. It is also interesting that it is also predominantly white, wealthy and frankly, snobbish. Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather...Diane Sawyer...

Arrianna Huffington is more the face of the left wing of the Democrat Party than is FDR, never mind Patrick Moynihan. She of the many estates, the private jets and the lectures on fuel consumption. Apparently Al Franken does not like to hire any minorities in his business dealings. Neither does Michael Moore. Hillary and Bill bought their home in 100 percent white Chappaqua. (Of course, it is 100 percent rich, too.) But these are the people who claim to speak for minorities. And the poor. Compare Dean with Condi Rice, who grew up in the deep South during the time of Dr. King. Personally, I look at Robert Byrd and then Condi and I shake my head. Of course, it is not widely known that the Democrat Party gave rise to the Ku Klux Klan many years ago. Look it up.

Howard Dean grew up in the lap of luxury. Much was made of Bush's National Guard service but not a whole lot about Dean's draft dodging. Of course, John Edwards' military record isn't exactly stellar either. I won't even get into Bill Clinton, another draft dodger. But suddenly, the democrat party's new wise old man is John Murtha, Marine. Funny, I never heard Max Cleland comment on Edwards' fitness for Veep, having had NO military background. Of course, Bob Dole's loss of his arm to the Nazis and Bush Sr.'s heroism as a pilot as a 19 year old didn't get repeated ad infinitum like the fact that John Kerry was a "hero." I recall certain Dems mocking Dole's arm, perhaps not knowing how he had lost its use. (But that's not hate speech either, is it?) Funny, when Clinton was running vs. Bush Sr. the war hero thing wasn't too important to Democrats. Refresh my memory. Why was that?

Hate speech, as it is called, has a long and torrid history for the dems, the left and liberals, esp. in recent years. Hey, it's a free country. Ted Rall can call our soldiers scum, as he does this week. Liberals can call conservatives all sorts of names. Enjoy yourselves.

On a purely political level, I do not mind when your side goes off the deep end with its hatreds. It alienates the middle and makes you look WAY out of the mainstream. Think Howard Dean's scream. I am also happy that the faces that represent your side are all rich, white and phoney. Common sense tells us that Katrina Vanden Heuvel has never worked a real job in her life and that John Edwards hair cut costs more than some people's weekly salary. For the folks in the Hamptons and Brentwood to claim to speak for the little guy rings pretty hollow. 57 percent of the nation's households own stocks nowadays, nearly quadruple twenty five years ago. While Bruce Springsteen sings about the grapes of wrath, he also owns a few mansions. Is Joe six pack buying that? I'm thinking maybe not.

Compassion by itself is nothing. Without logic and discipline, it can make matters worse. I find too many liberals thump their chests about how compassionate they are, regardless of what they advocate. Even when it is destructive. As long as it makes them feel good about themselves, it is good. This is selfishness and vanity, not compassion. It is self serving.

"Look at me! I'm soooo compassionate! LOOK AT HOW COMPASSIONATE I AM!!! Aren't I wonderful?!!!"

Not necessarily.

Of course, it is easy to be compassionate with the gov't. I don't think Arrianna ever used food stamps, do you? But I wonder, did she take any Katrina victims into one of her houses?

Liberals feel where conservatives think. Jesus never said to cut off your brain. He never said to keep giving money to a drunk. He never said compassion meant being a jackass. He was a smart, no nonsense person when it came to people's bunk. Thus the outburst in the temple against the money changers et al. He forgave any and all, but only after repentence. Sin was not to be dodged, but confronted head on. For liberals, compassion means never having to say "I'm sorry." Because right and wrong are like choices of coffee. None are good or bad, just personal choices. But right and wrong for Jesus were not relative, not up for grabs and not subject to moods and circumstances. You could always be forgiven but you could not say you were right when you were wrong.

Jesus was not going to tell you two plus two equals five. Jesus had a big heart, but he was no dummy. He had compassion, but he was no sucker. Regret and atonement were absolutes to gain compassion. Right and wrong were unavoidable. Go and sin no more, he told the adultress. He forgave her, but he didn't ask her if her husband was insensitive to her needs. I submit that he found her penitent.

Preening on about how concerned one is, is cheap and easy. Ted Kennedy does it regularly. I personally would like to see him do something in public to atone for his part in the death of Mary Joe Kopechne. That's just me.

Ann Coulter highllights absurdity with absurdity. She's good at it. She scores points vs. liberals and their mindless assertions of their moral superiority. That many of them do so from the distinct comfort of upper middle class lifestyles has long made me skeptical, nay, cynical about them. Coulter too. I think it is not her "hate speech" that offends liberals so much as her ability to cut through their platitudes to the essential contradictions of their points of view.

What is this woman talking about that Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal??? Is she reading different Bible than me or what? See, last time I checked the Bible, God did not support Homosexuality, Abortion, and unless history has magically changed itself God completely destroyed Sodom and Gomorah for being so sinful. This country's moral fiber has decayed and is becoming worse day after day. Yeah, in a perfect world there would be peace and everybody would just love each other and La Dee Fucking Da, whoops, God said we are all sinners and we all fall short of his glory. WE DON'T LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD!!!! We just do the best we can and try to survive until God can sort out all of the assholes. Secondly, Lydia comes out and says "I never mix religion with politics" (emphasis on never) and then goes on to describe the Messiah of a religion that she obviously knows nothing about. At least Ann's not completely hipocritical, and if she is at least she's smart enough to hide it. Whoa, hold your horses, I have genius idea, I'll say that I never do something, and as soon as I say that, I'll do it.

What is this woman talking about that Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal??? Is she reading different Bible than me or what? See, last time I checked the Bible, God did not support Homosexuality, Abortion, and unless history has magically changed itself God completely destroyed Sodom and Gomorah for being so sinful.

Didn't stop Jesus hanging out with hookers, did it? And if you can provide Jesus's teachings on abortion and homosexuality (chapter and verse) we'd be glad to hear them.

My mistake--the film clip of Dr. King's assassionation was, of course, a television add, and not a radio ad.

And Ahem--Jesus spent time in the company of sinful people. He made it clear that this was not an endorsement of sin. And if you can't find any passages relating to homosexuality, sexual immorality in general, and murder in the Bible, I suggest you try reading it.

you know what, i'll come to the Liberal Level. I mean right now we're mixing church and state right. The Christians are against Abortion because they think it's murder, well let's look at it from a legal standpoint. Abortion is illegal if it is performed past viability, viability being the child's ability to live outside the mother's womb. Late term abortions, or partial birth abortions are still being performed, which i think is an abomination, i mean the doctor delivers the baby breach (sp?) except for the head, now this is important, if the head comes out, do you know what that is A LIVE BIRTH...but anyway, the doctor leaves the head inside the mother jamming scizzors into the back of the child's head, inserts a tube, sucks out the brains, then proceeds with the labor and the child is born without a brain function rendering it still born; now who in their right mind thinks thats ok, or that by outlawing this practice one is taking away the rights of the mother, i mean seriously lets try to be a little bipartisan, you can be pro abortion and anti-partial birth. My main point is...what happens when technology catches up with us and makes viabilityat say 3 months.
I think people are very uninformed about this topic, do women realise how unhealthy an abortion is, psychologically, physically; what the chances are of ruining your uterary wall and disabling you to have children.
PLEASE i don;t want you to take what i say as written in stone, DO research yourself, find the studies, ignorance is bliss but it makes you look like an idiot.

Coulter: A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion. Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates. Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001. Ann Coulter is the author of four New York Times bestsellers —How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004), Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998). Whew! Impressive! Now....

Cornell: Actress. Wannabe Writer. No Educational Credits listed! BUT - She is fluent in Spanish and comes from a family dedicated to the arts! Her grandfather, Henry Ward Beecher Stowe, was great-grandson of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin! Her passions are children's charities and fighting drug & alcohol abuse.

No wonder Cornell thinks Jesus is a Liberal! She can't read the Bible!

Big K,
Not to say you wasted your time with me, but I believe in the death penalty, so that rant was for nothing ha. I'm just saying, we could be wrong on that one, and may have to atone for it or stand accountable. I don't know. I'd rather be uncertain on the deaths of dozens than applaud the slaughter of millions (abortion) or have contributed to the genocide of a nation (Bosnia, Iraq, et. al.).

Someone should explain to Lydia and her sycophants here that hate disguised by passivie agressive mockery (truly a feminine tool if there ever was one) is still hate. And, by the way, take some time to read (or re-read) Orwell's 1984. This entire blog is an example of "double think" - condemning something in others while justifying it to ourselves as we do exactly the same thing.

As a (soon to be former) lifelong Democrat I am disgusted by the way the Dems have morphed into the part of hate and racism. A perfect example of the confluence of the two was the preacher from Lousiana who came here to Oakland to stand in a neighborhood church and accuse Bush of ignoring the tragedy in the aftermath of Katrina by stating "a black man's life has always been cheap in America".

Sorry, but I don't see the difference between the preaching of hate in a church in Oakland and the preaching of hate in a Madrasa in Saudi Arabia. And I didn't hear Lydia or any of her fellow Dems complaining about it.

Instead they complain about people like Ann Coulter. Maybe it's because their insanely jealous about how much more effective and persuasive she is than they are.

Thanks, I was beginning to wonder if anyone intelligent read my posts. And I did not waste my time, I was not just speaking to you but to anyone who is willing to listen. As far as my post was concerned, those opinions are not merely my own, but the result of research I have done into my religion as to how and why the Church has had this position and how it changed more recently. I came to my own conclusion, that happens to agree with the Church as it has been, after much reading and deliberation. I simply meant to inform.

"to create as much . . . discord and hatefulness as they possibly can and follow a scorched- earth political strategy: burn down the house in hopes that you'll inherit the ashes."
--Al Gore, on Republican goals

"A lot of people are afraid of you. . . . Worse, you're an intolerant bigot."
-Sam Donaldson of ABC to Gingrich

"The most hideous schemes are being put forth now in the name of conservatism... ...If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism. Here we call it conservatism."
--Jesse Jackson

"The Christian Coalition was a strong force in Germany. It laid down a suitable, scientific, theological rationale for the tragedy in Germany. The Christian Coalition was very much in evidence there . . ."
--Jesse Jackson (note, the Christian Coalition was founded in 1989)

"I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do of heart disease.. . . He's an absolutely reprehensible person."
--Julianne Malveaux, Pacifica Radio talk show host, on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

"They'd like to see the Medicare program just die and go away... You know, that's probably what they'd like to see happen to seniors, too, if you think about it."
--White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, Oct 26, 1995

" 'Apollo 13' . . . celebrates the paradisiacal America invoked by Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan --- an America where men were men, women were subservient and people of color kept out of the damn way."
--Washington Post

"...if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion. Or one of his grandchildren will get it."
--Nina Totenburg of NPR, on Sen. Jesse Helms

"a cancer [who should be] cut out of American politics,''
--Bill Clinton on conservatives

''At night, the enemies of civil rights strike in white sheets, burning churches. By day, they strike in black robes.''
--Jesse Jackson, on the Supreme Court

"Just when our community starts to move ahead, some people try to turn back the clock. Sometimes they do it with bullets. Sometimes they do it with laws.''
Radio ad, accompanied by a film clip of the Martin Luther King assassination

`reading too much `Mein Kampf' for his own good.''
--Tom Fleck, Houston Press Columnist, about Harris County Republican Chairman Gary Pollard, in a piece entitled "Watch out for the GOPstapo!"

"I think because he could not say `nigger,' he said the word `corrupt'... George Will can just take his hood and go back to wherever he came from.''
--Carol Mosely Braun (Note that George Will didn't use the word "corrupt" either.)

`Don't you believe that they don't want to dismantle the Social Security system. They are afraid to come out from under their hoods and attack us directly.''
--Charles Rangel

`one of the junior Grand Wizards of the vast right-wing conspiracy.''
--Keith Olbermann of MSNBC on Lauch Fairthcloth, the conservative North Carolina senator

`When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don't vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister. . . . Paid for by the Missouri Democratic Party.''
--Radio spot aired in St. Louis

`If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together --- all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! Wait! . . . I'm not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we'd kill their wives and their children! We would kill their families!''
Alec Baldwin, actor

"I'll be watching, hoping someone shoots him. It would no doubt be a thrill."
Abraham Polonsky, about Elia Kazan

"Gingrich should be hanged."
--Richard Cohen of the Washington Post

"Conservative legal interest groups such as the Center for Individual Rights and the Southeastern Legal Foundation are . . . a homogenized version of the Klan. They may have traded in their sheets for suits . . . but it's the same old racism."
--Former Atlanta mayor Bill Campbell

"Kenneth Starr is cunning, ruthless, and about as well-mannered as Heinrich Himmler."
--The Arkansas Times

"...so bad that you could get rid of every fascist tract in your library if you just had a copy"
--Biilzebubba, on Texas Republican Party platform

"dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on the Cuban section of Miami."
--suggestion by Alexander Cockburn of the New York Press

I take responsibility partly for my son's death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just... ...I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for....""
--Cindy Sheehan

"Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs"
--John Daly, English professor at Warren County Community College in New Jersey

The first thing the Jews said to the American troops when they were liberated was "What took you so long?" .....FDR's peaceful inaction

Jimmy Carter's peaceful inaction led to 1,000,000 deaths upon the killing fields of Cambodia.

800,000 Rwandans were hacked to death while Bill Clinton stood by in the name of peaceful inaction.

The Taliban murdered, raped and tortured hudreds of thousands while Clinton refused to step in and use force to stop the insanity.

Bush invaded Iraq to fight terrorism at it's root AND to liberate tens of millions...never giving a thought to whether he would be re-electable in 04'.
This takes guts, duty and honor. Traits the Democrats have considered secondary to re-election for decades.

I cannot believe you had the nerve to call Christ a "bleeding heart Liberal". Apparently, you have NEVER read The Bible. I suggest you try it sometime - especially if you are calling yourself, or anyone else, a Christian. I would give you some verses to get you started but by the end of your diatribe, I was convinced you really need to read it cover to cover. You may even check out a few Bible studies in your neighborhood.... they may enlighten you as to God and Jesus.
You have really embarassed yourself this time.

I don't see hate in the statement you cited, "a black man's life has always been cheap in America."

If you think that's hateful, what must you think about Coulter's endless stream of real hate speech in which she calls for physical harm and even death to non-republicans?

You must be aware the above-cited statement is true, and adding to it is the current neo-con bu$h administration's callous removal &/or serious reduction of social aid funds to people who are struggling to survive financially, including the infirm and our elderly, who are unable to work.

These days, not only is a black man's life cheap in America, but so are the lives of those I just mentioned. Not just cheap --- shall we say dispensable --- so the most wealthy 1% of our population can take whatever money it wants from the poorest, the middle class, and even those who are wealthy but not in the upper 1%. This is gang rape, my friend.

The PNAC group (the ones in the bu$h Cabinet) have called for racial genocide (in their Harvard & Yale terms) - from this article The True State of Black America.

[snip] On page 60 of The Project for a New Century (PNAC) report, Rebuilding America's Defenses, the author writes:

"[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

[Cynthia McKinney continues .. ] Now, I don't know what they meant by that bit of advice. But I do know that such research has been conducted already, according to news reports, in Israel and in apartheid South Africa. At home, I do know that the US Government has been sued by the son of Paul Robeson for Robeson's targeting by the CIA's MK Ultra Program; and the Tuskegee Study which for 40 years targeted black men who thought they were being treated by their government (for syphillis) and who, instead, were being studied by it. [end snip]

Read the entire speech given by Cynthia McKinney for more information on real hate crimes against blacks from someone who actually witnessed it.

AND, please allow me to remind you that we are not JUST COMPLAINING about Coulter and other abusive, hate-filled right-wing spokespersons --- we are calling for illumination.

We are working toward exposing their non-productive ranting and hate-rhetoric for what it is and we are asking intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate people to take a stand against it --- and those who use it as a tool [see Manifest Destiny] to degrade and dehumanize non-republicans, in order to absolve themselves of any guilt associated with their crimes against humanity.

PS --- bu$h DID ignore the tragedy in N.O. before, during AND after Katrina.

I'd recommend you really read the Bible --- pay special attention to the words of Christ. Try hard to separate yourself from your militant side and pray for guidance so you can "study to show yourself approved."

I don't think Christ would be a Dem. The Democrats want to help the suffering in America. THATS BULLSHIT. Does anyody know how many Americans on welfare are fat? have cell phones? have television? The welfare program in this country is a joke. I live in new orleans and i see it first hand. Everybody saw all those people sitting on the convention center, you know why, they have no idea what it is like to live or take care of themselves, so what do they do, they sit on thier asses with both hands out. Why does the gov't issue food stamps only to be spent on food??? I say give them cash, if they spend it on drugs alcohol, getting thier hair done...so be it, they will soon learn how badly they need food. You can be on welfare for 4 years. People are so lazy. Dems cry about outsourcing, well fuckin right, what does that say about all the people on welfare, they're so lazy they think they're above jobs that we have to give to people over seas for a quarter of the price. We have it so much better here nobody really has any idea. Try living 4 weeks with no running water no gas in 100 degree weather. I think Dems should get their heads out of their asses. The senate voted to pull troops out of Iraq. 4 voted to. After all the shit talking only 4 senators had the testicular fortitude to back thier breathless bark. You guys are pussies, why can't you just admit that you want to do the same things as republicans just shadier and more back handed. Ask Ralph Nader, he hates you more than the Republicans

It's not just the Dems who are at fault for poor handling of the welfare situation.

The way to handle it is to give help for work. Unfortunately, there has been a failure by both Parties to make this reality. The old saying, "give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for life" should be taken to heart by our government.

The bu$h administration has taken away the opportunity for welfare recipients to receive aid to go to school (continuing education and college.) This is egregious. Increasing the education level of our country's citizens should be a number one priority. The bu$h admin. is shooting us all in the foot.

The jobs that are outsourced are those that our trained computer experts are losing. These are not the garbage collectors, they are people who have spent years and lots of money going to school to earn a highly qualified, professional skill.

1.) "The man's father is a wonderful human being," (I add, Harry) Reid said in response to a question about Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser." --Washington Post, May 7, 2005

2.) The National Down Syndrome Society is extremely disappointed by Maureen Dowd's recent use of the term "extra chromosome conservatives" in an interview on Bill Maher's show "Real Time" on HBO. --- National Down Syndrome Society

3.) Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives," which he later clarified to say Republican "leaders --- Howard Dean, San Francisco Chronicle, June 7, 2005

4.) "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?,” Dean asked to laughter. “Only if they had the hotel staff in here.” --- Howard Dean, NY Newsday, February, 2005

5.) Waving a bottle of wine, Goldberg launched her double entendres in New York City last Thursday at a gala that raised $7.5 million for Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Other performers at the event called Bush a "cheap thug" and a liar. --- USA Today, July, 14, 2004

Great another jealous liberal -apologetic speech from a so called "christian". Unfortunantly all of us young 20 yr old conservatives find your "kind" as the root problem with our churches today. Perverting Biblical truth with your new and improved "feel good" Human Secularism creeping into our churches and youth groups.

To answer your question in your blog, no you are not even remotely close to the intellectual Ann Coulter is. You got where you are from your looks, nothing more. Your a just another whining hollywood liberal who has lost touch with what America used to stand for. When you get a law degree from a Ivy League college, then I might consider you the intellectual Ann Coulter, but still probably not. I was gonna say I'll pray for you to grow a brain, but I can't do that, I'm currently sitting in a public building :O

Well of course I must agree that liberals are compassionate...in defending perpetrators of violence like Tookie Williams and Saddam Hussein.

And they are quite charitable...with Conservative folks' money.

They also have a sense of humor...unless it comes in the form of satire directed at them.

Of course Ann Coulter doesn't advocate taking away first amendment rights from anyone...it's called satire. But professors and administrators of most universities actively deprive Conservatives of their rights to free speech each day, as documented by David Horowitz. All liberals have to do is characterize it as "hate" speech, and the Conservative is banished--freedom is routinely trampled. When Ann attempts to speak, liberals throw pies in an attempt to silence her; but they miss because typically they are girls or un-athletic girly men.

Liberals' real frustration is that the gal has gonads. Ann Coulter is competent, she is quick, she is witty, she is highly intelligent, and she has bona fide integrity which is a foreign concept to most Liberals. Ann Coulter is a tiger; she won't back down; you ass clowns will never silence her. Deal.

Yes, Kira, Project for a New Century said that biological warfare may be used as a political tool.

First, this does not mean, in any way, shape, or form, that they are suggesting we do so.

Second, if they were it wouldn't matter. Project for a New Century is a bunch of guys who told the President what they think he should do. I think the Federal government should adopt a flat tax, disband Welfare completely, force New England to seceed from the Union, fence our entire southern border--with razor-wire!--withdraw from the United Nations and tell them exactly where to go and what to do with a rolled-up copy of the Kyoto Treaty when they get there, invade Syria, and finally concquer North Korea and hand it over to South Korea. I I think Bush should do all of these things, and I voted for Bush; his does not mean, unfortunately, that these actions are President Bush's policy, no matter how much they should be.

" the most wealthy 1% of our population can take whatever money it wants from the poorest, the middle class, and even those who are wealthy but not in the upper 1%."
Just who and how are the "most wealthy 1%" of our population "taking whatever money it wants"? This bit of Marxism is especially amusing in light of the fact that the wealthies 1% of our population holds slightly less than 20% of America's wealth, and pays more than 30% of its taxes.

"This is gang rape, my friend."
Put aside, for the moment, that the theft you speak of is truly imaginary--to claim that this theft is the equivalent to gang rape is a demonstration of either apalling ignorance or apalling immorality.

And finally, quoting Cynthia McKinney doesn't help your cause any. As a native Georgian, I am well aware of Ms. McKinney's exploits, and say with certainty that she is almost as much an embarrassment to our state as is the fact that there is a district within our borders where she was able to win an election. McKinney was one of the first to blame Bush for 9/11, who wrote what basically comes out to love-letters to the Saudi government after we turned down a donation from them because they told us it was our fault we got attacked, whose campaigns are still funded by pro-jihad groups, and whose father was blaming a previous election loss on the "Jews, J-E-W-S, Jews".

If you've got to use Cynthia McKinney's words to make a point, you're really grasping at straws. Not to mention that I find it hard to believe an archetypical white racist country cop who would beat a pregnant woman with a bike-chain (and who has enough bike-chains laying around that they would pick one up for a weapon anyway? This guy is supposed to be a redneck--where's the shotguns, the tow-chain, the pick-handle?), but when being threatened by a black man with a gun, this guy (who, remember, has the ability to call for backup, not to mention throw people in jail) simply apologized and let them go on their way.

"PS --- bu$h DID ignore the tragedy in N.O. before, during AND after Katrina."
And thank you for illuminating the problem of hate-filled rhetoric.... apparently by demonstrating some for us.

Well, you see when a conservative argues with a liberal, the conservative always confuses the issues with the facts. For example the bumper sticker " Clinton lied nobody died " Fact: Clinton did lie under oath. Fact: 18 Army Rangers died on October 3rd 1993. But you really see the issue is " Clinton lied and nobody died."

Yet we continue down the road confusing issues with facts. Issue: Ms Cornell says "Death is sexier than sex (to Ann Coulter)" because Ms Coulter uses satire and pointed humor to get her point across. Fact: I don't believe Ms Cornell has personal knowledge of Ms Coulter's sexual preferences and nor could she effectively hold an intellectual debate with Ms Coulter. Ms Cornell debating Ms Coulter would be analogous to bringing a knife to a gunfight. Moreover, Ms Coulter's personal courage, integrity and penchant of taking " the harder right over the easier wrong " is well documented. Fact: Ms Cornell uses sound bytes of Ms Coulter's thoughts in an attempt to discredit her. Obiviously, Ms Cornell did not read Ms Coulter's review of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee Ms Miers.

Therefore conservatives are faced with a quandry of how not to confuse issues with facts. May I suggest we create a simple minded slogan such as " If you can't make the standard then you double it."

Kira, I fail to see how quoting people bashing Republicans is "doing exactly what they blame the liberals of doing." I can concur with you on 94, but 92's point is still completely valid. He has said nothing himself but has quoted hate speech from Democrats. His point stands.

And as for Getplanning...her points are not less valid just because someone with whom you disagree likes her. Hannity can be a douche, but he too brings up some damned good points. You're comment is no less blind than if I said, I refuse to acknowledge anything James Carville says of any import, because Michael Moore likes James Carville. That would be stupid.

With a few exceptions, all I've seen on this board is either random Democrats lining up around the block to literarily fellatiate Ms. Cornell, and by proxy, denounce the evil right-wingers on the board, or flailing Republican no-nothings who seem unable to use a good argument even if one falls in their laps. And when someone makes a good point, no one addresses it. Is this the state our political system has come to? A bunch of foolish partisan lemmings who will walk off of any steep cliff when their respective leaders tell them to?

Jesus Christ, help us. It's like four year olds arguing which color of crayon is best. No matter who wins, nothing of importance is decided.

Democrats, stop waiting for your number to be called to speak your praise and perform "your duty" on this lady, no matter how fetching she is. Actually look at the content of her work. It's flimsy, full of holes and contridicts itself at every turn. Stand up and stop looking at her point of view from underneath her skirt. "I'm falling in love with you all over again" is not a relevant point. And it makes anything nice you say about her sound moot.

Republicans, for you, actually adress the woman's work. This isn't about Clinton's zipper, or his perjury. This isn't about whether Merry Christmas should be Happy Holidays. Address her arguments. No wonder people think we have turrets, everytime some whack job comes out, I don't want people to die...so we won't ever do anything about any foreign violence.....ever, we go foamy at the mouth about the Lewinski scandal.

There are pertinent issues to stick to here:

1. Are conservatives are gloom and negativity while liberals are sunshine and flowers? No, they're not. Only a fool or a brain washed lemming believes that, or even its converse.

2. Is this double standarded? I don't want people to die. Bush is responsible for the death of 2000+ soldiers. We should've done nothing and let untold hundreds of thousands continue to die. And at the same time, ignored the rape, violations of his treaty with the UN and him shooting at our planes. Is that a double standard? You damn straight.

3. Is "We should've gotten rid of him 10 years ago" a valid anti-war anthem? No, in fact it solidifies our position. You don't say "I shouldn't have to vacuum the living room because I should've done it days ago." Or "I don't need to install locks on my door to protect me, because I needed them years ago." Of course not. You'd sound stupid. Same here.

4. Can you accuse someone of being rude and vile, then later in the same article refer to them offhandedly as a man? Of course not. This woman violates her whole argument here that she's better than Coulter being "sinking" even lower than Coulter's tactics. You don't even need to look elsewhere for examples of liberal hate. We have them right here.

5. Can you defend someone in your party of the exact same thing you're lambasting an opposite party member of doing? Of course you can. But it nullifies your whole argument.

6. Not even going to ask a question here. You can't claim "I don't mix religion with politics...BUT....here's religion with politics. You (AGAIN) sound stupid. And I don't believe it anyway. I have yet to meet a single person who doesn't mix religion and politics. They don't exist.

7. Again, no question. The Nazi campaign against the Jews DIDN'T start off with jokes. Sorry, this one's false. Hitler was clear from moment one he didn't like the Jews. They were a plague on Germany. I have the feeling that Ms. Cornell isn't saying this because she doesn't know history, but because she's SPINNING. There is no similarities between Ann and either Hitler or Stalin. This one's just bunk too. In actuality, Hitler started by getting rid of guns, watering down religion, and stiffling free speech. Sounds familiar to me, and it aint the right wing I'M talking about.

8. Is $20,000 dirty? No. She goes on and on about this. And revisits it. On this she's almost as bad as Ann is about Clinton. Get over it. Moore charges somewhere around 50g if I remember right. The people who are showing a sneak peek of the new Wal Mart film in my town are charging 35g for the priviledge. Let's not pretend that selling your political opinions for money isn't about money. Respect is great, but it don't pay the bills. And off topic, anyone who has heard Michael Savage, would immediately apologize to Ann for calling her the most vile spinner. But while we're getting rid of people...if Ann goes, I'd like Dowd gone. If Limbaugh...Michael Moore, and if Hannity...Carville. It's only fair. And Democrats love fairness right?

Finally. I'm sorry, I live in the real world. And liberals have no shortage of freedom of expression in the real world. Only in the Twilight Zone you talked about do liberals not have free speech. If you dislike her calling liberals hate mongers, or saying your party is treasonous, do the obvious solution. Stop defending people who openly hate America. Michael Moore hates this country. You defend him. When a teacher teaches his students that America deserved what it got, the left rushes to embrace him for his "courage". And when someone remarks that he hopes to see some Americans get shot, he's just exercizing his free speech rights. Take the wind out of her sails and knock these guys down a couple pegs and stop feeding her ammo.

Thanks for the help, Kenny, but I don't believe that anyone has yet referred to Biilzebubba's zipper. I did quote several things said by Clinton ("I did not have sexual relations with... that woman" was not among them) in order to counter her argument that the Democrats take the high road and suffer a torrent of abuse for it (I believe that's #5 on your list), but I don't remember anyone commenting upon his adolescent sexcapades. Nor did we comment upon Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays or Easter/Spring Break or Independence Day/White Slaveowner's Day or any other such instance of political correctness.

In fact, while your points 2 and 3 are indeed good points, perhaps I could remind you to actually address the woman's work?

I do indeed apologize for not giving you the recognition you feel you deserve--and while yes, that is sarcastic, it's not entirely so; what I've seen so far is well-written and raises valid points. But I disagree that failure to bring forth the proper praise means that we are unable to recognize a good argument, or that we have failed to use them.

And yet again, Ann Coulter is right.
"Conservatives couldn't put together a three-car funeral without producing six books denouncing one another... [while] Teddy Kennedy crawls out of Boston Harbor with a quart of scotch in one pocket and a pair of pantyhose in the other, and Democrats hail him as their party's spiritual leader.

Thank you Kenny. I just logged in and saw Kira's comments to mine. I thought the exact same thing. I'm just reiterating what they said --- and I'm using hate speech and being unChristian?

And to follow up on Freedom Fan's response to Yay Abortion --- exactly!! I'm amazed pro-choicers never suggest adoption as an alternative. And who is being selfish. Selfish is killing a life because they aren't wanted.

It is so disingenuous to say pro-choicers are only for choice and not abortions. If you're for choice, then you are agreeing that killing a baby if so decided by the mother IS OK whether it's one mother or over a million a year as it is now. There is just no way around it.

Is this woman for real? The Left's new Anti-Coulter? Honestly, is this the best the nihilist lefties can do? Short on content and depth and long on perky good looks and an assumption that she has the moral high ground just because...well, she's a liberal. Then again, these are the people who tried to get John "all sizzle and no steak" Kerry elected.

Her qualifications: she's a democrat and a mom and speaks from the heart, not her head. Too true. Intellectual firepower is conspicuously absent. She does have the courage of her convictions... a.k.a. a deathgrip on her left-wing faith that precludes rational thought. She claims that her principles are Christian...but clearly they are, shall we say, somewhat elastic. Please, Lydia. Don't take this personally. You suffer from the same maladies that plague all Lefties.

My biggest problem with what she says: can she honestly not understand the fundamental truth of the statement ‘liberals and traitors and terrorists; different stages of the same disease.’ ?? Add "lack of analytical prowess" to her list of deficiencies, I guess. If you truly don't get it, read some Horowitz. If your friends won't disown you for doing so, that is.

If you really think you're smart enough to do battle with conservative intellectuals, you'd better have a thick hide, girlie. Because Ann Coulter is not a hate-monger; she just has a a razor-sharp intellect, a very sarcastic sense of humour, and a grasp of the issues that you simply cannot match.

Kenny, you raise some good points. I thought it a bit odd that Ms. Cornell thought that the Nazi's started their campaign against the Jews with jokes. Anyone heard of the book Mein Kompf? Hitler wrote it years before gaining power. He outlined everything he was going to do, it was a best seller. In fact, its still in circulation.

I don't mind the other stuff though. If dems insist of reffering to people they don't like in ways that show the obvious intellegence of the writer that is their business (examples, SatAnne kkkoulter, bu$h). Makes it easier for me to skip their posts, as I am sure nothing of interest exists therein.

The harder ones to skim over are the posts that simply devolve into a preschool mentality. An argument whose entire premise is centers around the phrase "nu uh," or "your a stupid head."

Such biting retorts, and democrates keep saying they have an intellectual superiority. Were that true we all would be in big trouble.

Redneck...the first few Republican posts in here were less than enlightened, though I just used two of the most common talking points today in my argument (even if Ann Coulter is, herself, quite stuck on Clinton). However, there has been a whole lot of other slam the author not the work going on. All of my numbered points, as well as my earlier posts are in regarding the woman's work. But I stand by my call that we need to stick to the issues, call them on their B.S. and hit them hard. Not personally attack them or rant about something completely off topic. Look at "I Laugh at Liberals" post for example. Or Sam, or Michael. There's no shortage of bile. Ann Coulter's point that we savage each other may be valid, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. I will not defend some foaming at the mouth loony just because they happen to ally themselves with me. That would make me no better than the Democrats. I look at that as a POSITIVE. We throw out our waste, that makes us the better party.

#5 on my list is: Can you defend someone in your party while slamming someone in the other party for doing the same thing? That was not a shot at anyone on the board, but instead a look back at Mrs. Cornell's work. She defends Al "Say fuck you to a Republican" Franken (twice I believe) and even uses his Ann Coulter's adam's apple joke. That's funny, that's satire. But Ann Coulter is just mean spirited and dangerous. That's her point. I called her on it.

And as for me feeling I deserve praise...I honestly don't know where that came from. Perhaps I came off arrogant, not my intention, OR perhaps you misunderstood me when I said valid points were ignored. I.E. Kira lumping 92 in with the 94, thereby ignoring the valid point of quoting Democrats, and classifying it as hate speech. Did I raise some good points that I wish would be addressed, yeah. I'd like to hear someone disagree with me on something on substance or try and dispute any of the long lists of quotes that have been put up by you and others, maybe try to classify them as satire perhaps? Perhaps a quote from Ann's Treason (loosely, cause I don't have the book) itself will clarify what I want here.

"No one will address this simple issue. Were there communists in the gov't? McCarthy was so mean. But were there communists in the government? The HUAC were horrible people. But were there communists in the gov't? Those poor actors who were victimized. But were there communists? It seems the only thing people don't want to talk about in dealing with McCarthyism is the only thing that matters. Were there communists in the gov't? The answer is yes."

That's what I'm seeing here. I'd like to hear some leftie answers to one of the many valid questions or points we've put forward instead of sneering. But instead all we get is:

"Bush lied kids died." But did we have valid cause to go to Iraq. "I don't know any pro-choice Democrats, but TO ME pro-life is not going to war." But did we have cause? Did we do good? "No WMDs were found." But did we have cause? The only thing nobody wants to address is the only part that matters. Did we have cause to invade? The answer is yes, but I'll be damned if the left isn't going to try and put "Operation Ignore" as Franken called Bush's plan, into effect for their own side.

I raised 9 points about her article, one or two you found offensive to you for whatever reason. And I stick by my whole argument. Maybe nobody mentioned Clinton's zipper, but look above Redneck, and try and tell me that I'm not right. Tell me that every conservative here stuck to topic. They didn't. I actually thought your posts were quite nice and I agreed with you. I'd like to have heard the answers to your questions or a rebuttal to your points, but alas not to be. May I ask you to do the same as you asked me. If you're going to attack me, actually look at the substance of my argument before doing so. I've got the funny feeling you knew exactly what I meant, but decided to give me grief anyways. I guess we've taken care of the eight books. Now if only we could get a bicycle, so we actually HAVE something in our three car caravan.

Kira...Comment 88 What would Jesus say to Mary Magdeline (SP?) if she were to go up to Jesus and say, I am pregnant and want to abort the baby? Wait i know what you think he would say, "why sister you body is your temple, you go forth and Terminate that pregnancy, your body is your temple, Remove that child should you not want" Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal my ass. Seeing how us christians believe in the trinity, God's actions apply as well as Jesus'. Let's see, the exodus and how it came about....hmmm
The Exodus If God we're a Democrat: Seeing how the Pharoah has hardened his heart and won't release the Jews, God will send the United Nations of Angels to investigate whether or not Egypt really has Slaves, and if they are Jewish. Well the Pharoah won't let the Angels in, so God, A Democrat, decides he will send money to the country to help...well the Jews are still "suppposedly enslaved." The Pharoah pilfers the relief money and enslaves more Jews. God now tells moses to give the Pharoah a hug, which leads to the enslavement of Moses. God, in an act of apparent testicular fortitude sends angels to militarily free the Jews and save Moses. 17 Angels are killed and 45 are wounded on the first day and God withdraws troops, saying that the Jews don't want to be helped anyway. The Exodus never happens.
Outcome of the Exodus if God were a Repulican: see-BIBLE

Obviously this is a little extreme, Jesus showed us how to all live in harmony, God teaches us that when that doesn't happen, one must use force.

How many spineless Dems voted to immediatly withdraw troops after all thier shit talking, and name calling? 4. you Pussies.

I too am surprised by the lack of response by the dems in the room. I said some stuff I thought would get a firestorm of response, some of which I was hoping would be good. Instead, I am greated with "what's with all of the right-wing trolls."

OK, if we want to get really technical on the peacefulness of Christ, it must be pointed out that Christ, as depicted in John 1:2, ("He was with God in the beginning."), has been present throughout all of time. His human manifestation on earth was not the beginning of His influence on society for he had been influencing society for all time. With this, the God ordained wars in the Old Testament were not only ordained by the Father, but also by Christ, both one in the same. To say that Christ would never be for a War you would have to ignore the Old Testament as well or not consider Christ as an ever-present part of the Trinity. Christ did teach peace on the personal level, but it is obvious that he saw the Nation State a bit different, that is the protector of the freedoms that he Himself has granted. Romans 13 1-7 displays this succinctly, basically the government is God's servant, gast, even as much as "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer [Rom 13:4]". Christians must not blindly see simply the surface of Christ's teachings, it is necessary to evaluate ALL of God's word and evaluate how Christ completes the word.

Yay Abortion said: ...You "pro-lifers" are such selfish people. Don't you realize the women who are having abortions can't afford their child or don't WANT it? [Ya mean they're aborting the kid because they don't want it? Wow, never thought of that!] It's cruel to force a child to grow up in a home where they will be unloved or neglected. [Hey genius, ever hear of adoption?] Yes, people shouldn't be that way --- they should love their children and they should be responsible human beings. But there is idealism and then there is reality. Not all homes are good for children. Some children would be better off being aborted...[Hmm maybe you're right; I can think of one right now: YOU, buddy. The 90th trimester is not too late is it?]

-Yay Abortion

Democrats have family values too. I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO IS PRO-ABORTION!

-Lydia Cornell

Yeah Lydia, nobody around here, that's fo sho. Jist stick to lookin pretty and leave the thinking up to the grown-ups like Ann Coulter.

So the button is pushed and everyone is chiming in. Hitler had a plan, well go figure. Was PNAC not a plan for bushco. Some of the arguments here are so lame, but had to read just to see where all this was leading. What a wonderful 'Christian' nation this is.

Christianity...didn't come from Jesus. (Hope he returns soon to straighten out this mess.. lol.) Just a bunch of men sitting around discussing how to turn this world into a patriarchal society, where woman were reduced to second class citizens. Oh, but they did allow Mary, Mother of Christ, to be the Goddess, to appease the 'pagens', also used alot of their 'holidays' as well. I do not call myself a Christian.....I AM out of the 'box'. M4

I may also point out to Ms. Cornell that calling conservatives not truly Christian is itself wrong. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Also, the parable of the Pharisee and the publican comes to mind (if you are not familiar, look it up). The Christian thing for Ms. Cornell to do would be to apologize. I am sure we will all be waiting with baited breath for that.

Aw man! Im not allowed to name call! boo! I know stooping to the level of a liberal is not in good taste but calling lydias jealous rant of "Im a better christian than you" is the peak of liberal idealogy. Someone needs to see it and call it out, thats all. Until people start to point out the hypocrisy on the left ("to hear Coulter spew hate..."with jokes" at anywhere between $16,000 and $30,000 a pop"-points out the jealousy) i am goin to continue namecall based on facts not on emotion.

No, #5 is a good point. In fact, so are the rest of 1-9. In fact, my only problem was with your claim that the only conservatives you saw arguing here were "unable to recognize a good argument if it fell in our laps".

By all means, hop in and have so fome fun, but no need to decide that you've got to show us all how it's done....

"Christianity...didn't come from Jesus. (Hope he returns soon to straighten out this mess.. lol.) Just a bunch of men sitting around discussing how to turn this world into a patriarchal society, where woman were reduced to second class citizens."
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we want education reform.

Jaxebad #110 --- yeah, it's a shame. in place of the usual reasoned discussions here on BB, the various threads have devolved into enough bile to cover the world in an ocean of spew two feet deep.

and it will only get deeper as this year progresses to the 2006 elections, then through the 2008 elections, and on and on and on in perpetuity throughout the known universe, in a perma-campaign cycle from which there will be no escape.

nothing will get done, problems will never be honestly addressed (much less solved). at least we will be alternately entertained and infuriated over what the "other side" is saying. i never thought verbal napalm was a useful tactic, but clearly i'm in the minority.

this is what has become of our public and private discourse. we live in a bitterly divided country, and any common ground we might have had has collapsed into the chasm below.

i see no bridge-builders on the horizon.

even if there came along someone who could unite the country over common causes for the common good, the mongers of fear and hate on both sides of the rift would no doubt find a way to take them out.

Yeah right!! Jesus would be aligned with the party of abortion with over 40 million babies killed (more than even Stalin and no other issue even comes close to killing so many), gay marriage (read Romans) and no God anywhere outside the home or church/synagogue (can't even teach the Constitution these days in school because it mentions a Creator).

Thank you for once again showing us how a liberal concedes a good point. First by not acknowledging the liberal was wrong. Then by throwing something inflammatory into the discussion that has no basis in fact. Third, calling yourself an authority on the subject based on your own opinions of the subject and calling their authority absolute.

As for Sam, he was talking about all flavors of Christianity, since all of them could be argued in that way. So please, don’t make me get all anti-Reformation on your hind parts.

I wondered who the heck this Lydia was mentioned on Ann Coulter's site, and after having read this guest blog I am now sure that she lacks the mental capacity to have an engaging debate with a decent conservative. Anyone that claims being pro-life is stopping the killing in Iraq and not stopping the killing of @ 4,000 babies each day in the USA is not worthy of intellectual respect. Do the math liberals. If we stop slaughtering the inncoent and defenseless preborn for ONE day, we gain @ 2,000 US citizens when taking the loss of @ 2,000 troops over the past few years into account.

And the troops entered the armed forces through their own choosing. The nearly 4,000 babies slaughtered each day in the USA are given no choice when their arms and legs are ripped off in the abortion process.

This'll probably be my last visit to this site, but it was fun. I did say with precious few exceptions, which were sadly all on the Republican side (such as big K, Redneck, etc). Again, the 9 points weren't my first post here. However, this has somehow dissolved into me debating people I actually agree with over a tiny sentence (I assume because there's no one else entertaining enough on the other side to actually debate with). Regardless...

Merifour...the obvious amusement of a non-Christian lecturing me on how I've strayed from Christianity is not lost on me. Since you have NO CLUE what you're talking about, I'll clue you in.

Christianity DID in fact come from Christ (go figure). And was later perpetuated by his apostles (again go figure). So you're argument is already lacking. But I'll continue. As opposed to Judaism (which segregates men and women in the church), Christianity allows them to sit near each other. Except for Catholicism, the other sects allow women to be preachers, pastors, etc. Man, I see your point, we ARE patriarchal. I'll ask my female pastor who leads our mostly female congregation for forgiveness for ruling over them with an iron fist, from my authoritive post in a pew (just like all the others) in the middle of the church.
And you're correct the apostles realized there would one day (almost 2 millenium in the future) be a feminist movement, and chose to have a woman have a baby. Before then men had traditionally had the babies I suppose. I mean, come on, how far out can you get.
Coincidently, almost all of the good movements in the US started in the church, de-seg, womens rights, etc, go figure. God, we've gone so far away from Jesus's example, with all those prostitutes we no longer stone, and the women who we gave the right to vote. What heartless humans we are.

Next time you're going to put forth an argument about what bad Christians we are, please make it a tad more substantiative than "You guys suck."

#8 is right on. The last sentence is so true of what has happened on this thread. The Truthseeker will receive the answers to the questions. Those that seek Truth will find it. The others will be forever ignorant. Many here know my beliefs as I have stated them before and they are mine and only mine. I take full credit. The 'offended' ones are having their belief systems challenged and that is not a comfortable place to be, as evidenced by the many that feel personally attacked by my statement. I do not see where in my post that I made a personal attack and many of the statements that are attributed to me, I simply cannot find. I do not respond to 'trolls' unless I agree with something they said. They are simply not worthy of my time. M4

"#118 your last sentence is absolutely correct. I agree. Some people just need to do their homework..eh. M4"
That your inane slander regarding Christianity is proof that many people are sadly uneducated? Yes, I thought it was correct.

" The 'offended' ones are having their belief systems challenged and that is not a comfortable place to be, as evidenced by the many that feel personally attacked by my statement."
Actually, it's because slander pisses us off too.

Kenny, good luck and all that good stuff. I'm wating too much time here myself, except that I get addicted to forums.

Actually, God commanded Israel to wipe out whole nations, and personally destroyed thousands of people. And Jesus chased the merchants out of the temple courtyard with a whip. You all have a warped perception of love and compassion, e.g. doing nothing and living "peacefully" here in the U.S. while millions die. Your so-called pacifism is fine and dandy, as long as we just ignore all the suffering that others go through while you advocate doing nothing. I eagerly await you pacifists putting out a self-help book for rape victims. "Oh, just have compassion for your rapists, and they won't rape you. Disarm them with love. Don't fight back." You guys do that, and be sure to post how well it works on this blog for me.And you have no comprehension of justice. And you perceive Jesus as a milquetoast hippie, but he actually stood up for something, didn't "make love, not war" or tell people that they could do whatever they wanted.

Definite MENSA material, I'd love to read your "Trotsky Assassination" tome, you volunteer the source of your flawed logic in the latter part of your blog: "feeling" rather than "thinking." Apparently your functional uterus and fashionably leftist assumptions have granted you some esoteric insight into reality in general. Anybody who doesn't agree with you must of course be a theocratic right-wing nut. Some thoughts:

-Some leftist think that free speech is the left spouting their propaganda without fear of recrimination or criticism. Right-wing criticism equals "hate speech" in the leftist lexicon, e.g., Ann Coulter's "Hate Speech". Leftists don't seem to realize that everyone is free to be an idiot, but there is no constitutional right to not being identified as one in a public forum.

-Christ was not a Marxist & therefore would never be a modern Democrat. Christ was a traditional Liberal as in "libertarian" who valued the individual whereas Democrats value "groups". Jesus detested "Evil" where as Democrats detest perceived "Inequality." Just for kicks, ask any overtly rabid Democrat if they view themselves as being in either the:
+"To each according to his needs" column: this will be the majority, i.e., "Sheeple" who feel morally superior in their entitlement mentality due to group membership

+"From each according to his abilities" column: this will be the minority
-Utopians: well meaning people who think that social engineering can change basic human nature (very dangerous people, these are the human secular "theocrats")
-Disingenuous Elitists: Leaders of the "Party"

-A few laughable Theocrats (e.g., Pat Robertson) notwithstanding, the Republican party is more inclusive than the Marxist dominated Democratic Party. In fact, Bush's political philosophy would conform to any "Christian Democrat" Party platform in Europe: social conservative, economic liberal.

-Ann Coulter is no more or less a "Bomb Thrower" than Al Franken.

-Since we're talking about unrealistic "perfect worlds", my utopia is Libertarian Society where:
+ Only the people who actually paid income taxes are allowed to vote
+ No progressive income taxation rate that harms the productive
+ The "State" does not control the education of the young
+ Women are expected & encouraged to exercise reason & accountability just like any man (I would call this the "Equal Responsibility Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution)
+ Morality is not legislated, but amorality is not subsidized
+ Acknowledgement that individual choices have consequences, both good & bad
+ Acknowledgement that human secularism is a religion and in its most virulent form, Communism, has been the most destructive force in the history of mankind
+ People will be judged via merit as individuals and not by group membership...

- The Nazi's were leftists of the National Socialist variety & the only difference between the Democratic Leadership (e.g., Howard Dean,Ted Kennedy, etc.) is that they are leftists of the International Socialist variety. WRT abortion, Both Hilter and Margaret Sanger (founder of "Planned Parenthood", responsible for 30% of all abortions in this country) were eugenists that admired each others views about the extermination of "lesser" races. Hitler would fit in well with the Sierra Club, PETA & any number of leftist organizations because he shared their charming views.

-People pay $20,000 for eruditic, thoughtful political humor. This is why "Air America" is such an abysmal failure and will soon be cast onto history's ash heap.

-"It is usually futile to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance." (Thomas Sowell) This would apply to you, Ms. Cornell.

[Outcome of the Exodus] if God we're a Democrat: Seeing how the Pharoah has hardened his heart and won't release the Jews, God will send the United Nations of Angels to investigate whether or not Egypt really has Slaves, and if they are Jewish...

Outcome of the Exodus if God were a Republican: see-BIBLE

-Michael Richmond

Yes, if God were a dhimmicrat the chapter "Exodus" would be called "Archipelago".

If God were a dhimmicrat, Bible proverbs urging "Charity" would read like "Robbing Hood", in which the productive "rich" are robbed so the lazy "poor" didn't hafta work.

If God were a dhimmicrat, the proverb about the prodigal son in which, upon his return in celebration, the father "slaughtered the fatted calf"...would become "ordered the finest tofu".

If God were a dhimmicrat, the folks of the Bible would have worn Birkenstocks instead of sandals.

If God were a dhimmicrat, the gifts of the three wise men to baby Jesus would have been colored condoms, porno magazines, and a hash pipe.

If God were a dhimmicrat, he would not have condemned sin, because as a moral relativist, he would want to remain "non-judgemental" and "open-minded" to all points of view.

If God were a dhimmicrat, the ten commandments might have been called the ten suggestions, and the content would have been a mite different. I'm still trying to picture Moses conducting a gay wedding ceremony. Bwahaha.

Dopey, failed actress Lydia Cornell learns how to write and spews her own hateful liberal rhetoric; complaining about Coulter's satire, which calls for the repression of hateful liberal, empty, rhetoric. She makes Anne Coulter's point. Hey Lydia, you think Jesus would spew incoherent, gutter-sniping, spiteful attacks against people that disagree with him? You think Jesus would endorse the state sponsored rape camps, torture chambers and the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims under Saddam Houssein (that would be the mass graves we found, when we liberated 25 million people). If that is your version of Christianity you can keep it. You freely admit you don't even understand what she's talking about most of the time. Maybe if she dumbed it down even more for you, putting it in the form of a bad disease of the week script, you might get it. We could name the script: "New Word Flu Pandemic: No Vaccine Yet for Endless Whining By Failed Hollywood Liberals". It could star you and Al Franken, Michael Moore could edit, his editing is how he "sells" his movies to uninformed nitwits like you. The only thing your article reveals is your rabid obsession with Anne Coulter.

Do you people ever listen to yourself? One of the comments above is that there are no Democrat Flamethrowers? What is Ted Kennedy? John Kerry spent so much time tripping over himself this week that I couldn't tell what he was doing, but most of it was time attacking President Bush......

I guess it just strikes me as funny that after decades of having the media in the hip pocket of the left, that now that there is a News Network like Fox that attempts to be unbiased the left attacks them at every chance.

I guess to me that's the problem with you people nobody else; Ann, Rush, OReilly or Hannity can have an opinion because it differs from the Liberals. That will also be the downfall of the Democratic party...by the time you realize that the majority of Americans can think for themselves, the Republican part will win in the mid-term elections......AGAIN

Jesus definately was a democrat! doesn't everybody remember the verse where Jesus talked about how much He loves abortion on demand, gay marriage, His name being banned from schools and public places, liberal artists who paint pictures of His mother covered in dung in a circle of genatalia, and how much He supports presidents who commit adultry and lie about it. NO, you don't remember those. Stop pretending you know ANYTHING.

But He wasn't really a person. Well He was a person, but He was God, too. God AND a person. A man, to be specific. A God/Man. Or Man/God.

Oh I hope I said that right. I hope I didn't offend Him. Or is it Them? 'Cause there's the Holy Spirit, too. The Holy Trinity. Do you think the Holy Spirit will be mad at me for not including It in the preceding paragraph?

The only thing that Jesus severely warned against over and over --- the thing that annoyed him the most, were the religious leaders - the Pharisees. I just spent a week reading all four Gospels to my children.

Hey at least for the $30,000 we pay to hear Coulter we get hate WITH jokes. with the likes of Michael Moore (who charges COLLEGE STUDENTS $30,000 for speeches) we only get hate and nonsense. is this woman nuts? hate mongering is a right-wing agenda? the reason we have people like ann coulter is because the liberals have bullied and dominated the media for so long. honestly now, i've had 4 professors say f* bush, and was actually a victim of mulitiple vandalism incidents at my college. i cannot believe that this woman is actually worried about young minds being manipulated by her (what ever happened to the love of the 1st Ammend? ), when an unbelieveable amount of STATE PAID professors get to manipulate students with their bias and get paid tax dollars for it. I guess i'm wrong though....those students who egged and keyed my car, vandalized my front door, and wrote threatening letters were probably just using "satire."

Well, by endorsing those who break every rule God ever wrote, at least you dodge the accusation of "Pharisee." I get the impression this isn't what Jesus meant.

Nor, by the way, did Jesus say these things, so if you want to talk about what a loving Christian you are, and emphasize how wonderful it is to move towards harmony, towards the center , you might want to show it by dropping the slander and smear-campaign. You might also try not asking a site more hateful than any conservative propoganda I've ever seen to publish your work for you.

Which Bible were you reading to your kids, Das Kapital? In mine he speas of "an evil and adulterous generation", says "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness", tells the people to "repent", informs us "Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets," and adds "whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven," and "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness" Those are all out of Matthew, which--if that's what you were reading them--you should have finished with sometime Tuesday.

Demosthenes, most of Air America's listeners are conservative. So, for that matter, are most of NPR's, the liberal media, and any other show, liberal or conservative. And more and more of Air America's contributions are coming from conservatives, for the simple reason that once it fails in the marketplace they'll go to congress with another FAIR act to attempt to muzzle conservatism.

Hmmm and Redneck: I am a comedienne and I do not advocate the killing of Republicans or the assassination of a president (as Coulter has in the past with Clinton.) There is a difference between frustration written out of bewilderment and outright hate-speech which targets whole groups for extinction. Even though Coulter thinks she's being clever and funny, she is still a charismatic speaker and the rabidity of her fans is legion. She does not appeal to nice people "in the middle" only to rapid extremists who are dangerous loons --- she inflames passions of anger and hate OBVIOUSLY, or I wouldn't be getting death threats (read my blog at www.lydiacornell.com) and she inflames passions toward anger and hate. She is not a patriot, her intention is that of a shock-jock like Howard Stern - and I wouldn't pay any attention to her if so many in our country didn't use it as rationalization for this rush to war. We have become too pornographic of a nation, and we seem to thrive on death and extremes of violence, hence my title "Death is sexier than sex..." which is obviously a silly play on words, because what on earth could be sexier than sex? I guess violence and hate-speak are a turn-on. In our country right now, watching people fight and be humiliated has become "Must-See TV!"

Also, read Matthew 23 please. And the Beatitudes and Matthew 5:38, 5:43 and everything else in red. Read the spirit of his words and his Sermon on the Mount. Actually just quiet your heart and go within; because it's in all of us, the kingdom, and I found it the hard way --- but the worst thing that ever happened to me on the brink of death became the best thing, my catastrophic awakening. You know you are made of love and we are all here just to overcome our hatred of each other. We are really all connected by the fabric of love. I have no idea how you glean anything other than love and compassion out of Christ's humility. God is not a fear and punishing God; God is love. And I know lots of us imperfect people who write comedy and say silly things because we are still human, but no one can mistake that my intentions are loving in that blog. By the way, Billy Graham is a lifelong Democrat --- and you know I think Rick Warren of "The Purpose-Driven Life" is one too. He if finally getting his SaddleBack church to help the AIDS victims on a massive scale.

Why can't we all respect each other's right to have a fun and insightful dialogue and a good laugh --- but not at the expense of a whole group of people who are targets of hate groups? Remember the peacemakers who died: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, JFK --- funny how all these martyrs who espoused democratic/liberal values were assassinated, isn't it? By liberal, I mean they wanted to bring equality to the races and end wars. (Republican meant Democrat back in Lincoln's day, I think.)

And when I talk about Jesus being a liberal I mean this: he spent most of his time caring for the poor and the sick and the sinners, the ones many Pharisees think are too immoral or dirty to touch. He sat on the ground and washed the feet and the sores of the lepers. He told us to leave judgment and vengeance to God. And I admit I am being judgmental when I judge our president lying to rush us to war. I admit I am stubborn, judgmental and sometimes obnoxiously righteous and I hate that about myself. If I've offended anyone here, I am sorry. I hope you'll forgive me so we can

But first, it's a play on words, I am making fun of myself for combining religion with politics, which earlier I say I never do --- so please try to get the frustration in my voice. And did you ever stop to think that some of us artists and actors who have to play characters that are evil, have to delve deep within to feel a person's emotions - therefore we see all sides and we develop compassion that is often lacking in math majors who don't explore psyche for a living?

Normally a person like Coulter wouldn't bother me so much, it's like watching South Park - but she has actual power to sway elections, or at least she did in the last two. This means she had friends in high places of inflluence, and this scares me that we have now inflamed the world against us for some evangelical mission that was never Christ's intention. And think about this: there's a reason the womb is encased in the separate private body of an individual woman: it is between her and God, and her soul suffers the decision, as we are really spiritual beings and all the wars are within ourselves. We are just playing them out on a macro-scale. This is probably too metaphysical to understand but the key is inside us. Go rent WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW? The miracle in the water...

And lastly, a good way to tell if you're faith is working for you, is to ask yourself: "how has my life been made more loving by my faith?" If it isn't making you a lighter, better, happier more generous person, then maybe we should try to see where we are clinging to the text in the wrong way. The key is hidden in plain sight. A great start is Emmet Fox "The Sermon on the Mount." It liberated me! "Angles can fly because they take themselves lightly!"
Love you all and God Bless you Ann Coulter!! Lydia

Actually, we could go around and around and around on how democratic, peaceful, and desirous of ending war Lincoln was (lemme put it this way: all that evil stuff y'all accuse Bush of doing, Lincoln actually did), but even then there was a great difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Meanwhile, my problem with abortion isn't what a woman does with her body. It's what a woman does with the kid's body.

"She does not appeal to nice people "in the middle" only to rapid extremists who are dangerous loons"
You do realize that you're trying to make the case that you just want us all to be nice to each other here, right? Granted, it's not the type of insult that would have me calling for a lawyer, but it does kind of run counter to your purposes--an implication that we're a brainless mob, ropes and shotguns in hand, waiting for Ms. Coulter to point a finger and scream "ATTAAAAAAAACK!" doesn't exactly promote love and understanding. I'm as willing to roll in the mud as anyone, or to take the high ground, but if you want to declare a truce, please do it before you throw the first punch.

Also, out of curiosity, what did you have to say regarding Ward Churchill's comments, regarding the "little Eichmanns" working in the World Trade Center when it was hit? Or Spike Lee's commentary that someone should shoot Charlton Heston in the head, or Nina Totenburg's hope that Jesse Helms--or one of his grandchildren--contracts AIDS? Would this be the time to speak of beams and motes?

But here is the portion wherein I actually take offense:
"but no one can mistake that my intentions are loving in that blog."
Yes, those intentions shine through, right... about... here.

Hate Ms. Coulter if you wish, ma'am. But please, don't tell me about how you represent the loving side of Christianity, in the midst of a slander-and-smear piece. It's... a little more than just ironic.

"And did you ever stop to think that some of us artists and actors who have to play characters that are evil, have to delve deep within to feel a person's emotions - therefore we see all sides and we develop compassion that is often lacking in math majors who don't explore psyche for a living?"
--I write myself, ma'am--perhaps not exceptionally, but well enough to win money both for short fiction, essay (a piece I'm rather proud of, seeing as I managed to use second person and present tense and actually managed to pull it off) and for poetry, and I have always been driven to white-hot hemorrhoidal rage by the concept of "I'm an artist, I feel things more than other people do." I usually have to bite down an urge to either a) put a cigarette out on their forehead and scream "That'd hurt like hell if someone did it to me, how does it feeeeeeel to you!?" or b) take off my shirt and drink bourbon from a quart jar. Fortunately, I succeed at a) and fail at b), rather than the other way around. Suffice to say that I firmly believe a greater ability to transfer what you feel to a medium--be it paper (both literally and electronically), canvas, sound, or the screen--does not therefore translate to a greater capacity to feel, or make someone a better person overall.

I must say, your attempts at an apology are nice in and of themselves and for that they are accepted. Please, in the future refrain from questioning the faith of those you disagree with. Honestly, you lost me right there. I can have a debate with anyone willing to talk rationally, even if I get infuriated with them. But questioning my faith is something you cannot do as a Christian. It is simply not Christ-like, and though I am glad you are reading your Bible, if you missed that part, you should read it again.

To get more to the point at hand, yes, Jesus spoke against the Pharisees plenty of times. Because they were hypocrites. They were waiting for the Messiah to come, and here He was, but they were hoping to hit the reset button and see what else they could get. Again, not the “peacemaker” they were looking for, so he told them in no uncertain terms that their whole way of life would be destroyed (which it was), they would be scattered to the four winds (which they were), and they would lose their inheritance from Abraham (which is why we are Christians, not Jews). All showing he was not there to fix their temporal problems with the occupying force that took over their land.

It could be argued that Jesus was “liberal” enough to tell everyone they can achieve Heaven and that perfection of the individual is possible no matter how much they have fallen before they die. Liberal in this sense being stretched to mean He was an eternal optimist. But make no mistake, He had no tolerance for willful ignorance. Accepting abortion in any terms amounts to this. Sorry. You are wrong.

Mosaic law, you should stone homosexuals since this is an abomination of nature. Does not sound very liberal to me.

Also, sex without the intention of having a child is absolutely forbidden in Mosaic law. Hence, having an abortion later because the child would live a life where it is not wanted is null before it begins.

All that is in Exodus. I suggest reading for understanding, rather than finding some hidden meaning in all this. You can get in a lot of trouble that way.

One last thing before the boon of sleep overtakes me for the night. Ann is a lawyer, you can bet your britches she is not advocating a killing. For if someone did it and cited her as the reason she would be in real hot water. She is not that dumb, whatever you think of her. If someone has been threatening you, they are doing this because they are stupid. Wholly unable to make a clear point in any other way they lash out with these idiotic overtures, that since you continue to post here and elsewhere, I am glad to see you have been able to circumvent any danger.

I suggest buying a gun and learning how to use it. As someone who has been the recipient of a few violent encounters with people really meaning to do me harm, I can tell you it does help me sleep at night knowing they are there. My wife prefers a .357 Taurus Tracker. It has a compensating barrel, is easy to handle despite it’s caliber, and a 7 round cylinder. Any idiot looking to pick a fight after looking down the barrel of that bad boy deserves what he gets.

What many of us have been saying here is you are just as liable for the “hate speech” you supposedly despise. Likening us to Nazi’s is not going to get me to see any point you have.

REDNECK: If you have an open mind, you will understand this. If not, I give up. I refer to the people who have threatened my life as dangerous, fanatical lunatics and Coulter-supporters --- because each one of these people who has called me at home has actually threatened/screamed/written that Coulter is a great human being and I am a worthless idiot, porn hooker, and worse. One guy said I should be shot, a man showed up at my door and my children almost answered it --- and one guy wrote something like this: "I wouldn't have minded if you had been killed in the WTC attacks." I hung up the phone shaking and crying. And you say I have no right to tell the truth about her and her inflammatory dangerous mission? She knows her fans are attack dogs, extremists.

I have never posed nude or done porn. I have kept myself out of the limelight in order to raise my children and deepen my understanding of my own demons. I have refused to take the easy route and do trash or reality TV or commercials I don't believe in.

ART vs. MATH --- when I said so many artists/philosophers/writers and actors are Democrats, there's a reason for this. Some leading intellectual conservative did a study on this and came up with some interesting conclusions (I have to find out his name.) He says that artists are more emotion-based and reach deep into the human soul, hence liberal. Mathematicians and economists and people who go into accounting and business for a living are more "head-oriented" they think rather than feel. We need both. Both complement each other. So to me, that's why liberals are so mushy and "feeling" and conservatives so good with money. Wouldn't it be great if we could work in harmony together? What a great country we would have! So when it comes to picking a Supreme Court justice, we need someone who can see all sides like Soloman. Wisdom is intellect WITH heart.

My referring to Coulter's hate-speak as anti-Christian is not hate-speak on my part. I am pointing out facts highlighting the truth with a "satirical" analogy. I am not advocating her death. (Please READ Coulter's work, all of it. Go to the link here called the Gospel of Ann. She espouses killing all Muslims --- and converting them to Christianity. She espouses assassinating Clinton, killing all liberals who work at the New York Times --- her language is as bad as a fundamentalist fanatic (Taliban is a good example of the extreme Muslim view). She actually wears a crucifix around her neck. I am ashamed of what fanatical right-wing so-called "Christians" have done to pervert the most beautiful religion in the world. I am a Christian. I am a Democrat BECAUSE I'm a Christian (as one of my fans wrote). There are many of us out here, but we're coming out now.

Obviously you are also a Christian I believe. Don't you think Jesus wanted us to find the common ground, the love between us? If I upset you by pointing out this horrific betrayal of Christianity on Coulter's part (and Pat Robertson --- and George Bush for saying God told him to go to war) then I am sorry. But I am exercising my right to speak what God has put in my heart. And nothing I have said promotes violence. Maybe it's provocative and gets people to think, but I am coming from my own point of view obviously and this is a country where free speech allows us to share ideas. Maybe I could get something from you, maybe you have made me think. Maybe you could get a tiny glimmer of light from me. Why are you so set up to fight me? Do we share nothing in common? I am looking for one soft message in your posts, one thing we share. We must stop fighting amongst ourselves. A NATION DIVIDED DOES NOT STAND. And don't use this as a justification for war, because many conservatives are also devastated by the lies behind this war. I want to support our troops by not letting a single soldier die again --- as ten more Marines were killed today! I support our troops by bringing them home to protect our own precious citizens and borders. These Muslim tribes, Sunni and Shia have been fighting tribal wars all their lives. They will now have to work it out for themselves. We are the problem, just being on their "holy" land is what irks them (the extremists who are blowing us up) so much. In their Jihad mentality, our very presence on Muslim holy soil (going way back to the Saudis corruption) is their justification for attacking us. Remove ourselves from the equation, come home, beef up our forces, spend all the money on our own borders --- and we would then be seen as heroes. It's like Alanon --- detach with love, let people work out their own issues. Democracy imposed from without (from outside) would not stick unless they come to it on their own... like the 12 steps. I am 11 years sober and have found that humility, not arrogance is strength. For me, the quickest route to God (putting God directly into my heart) is the 12-steps; then I got back to exploring my childhood religion, and then began really reading with a new eye. From withIN to withOUT. It's an inside job and we all have it inside us to love each other. Love & Peace, Lydia

To all the disgruntled republicans posting vitriolic messages here....

to all the people trying to 'prove' how much of a better or righteous christian they are

read through your hostile, hateful messages.

and before you accuse me of being a democrat lover, liberal, sympathiser.... i'm just reading the text on here and it's rather scary.

I have read Lydia Cornell's posts and found them to be intelligent, and from the heart. something which lacking in many of the above mentioned posts. Everybody has views, but i don't think any person had the right to subject Ms Cornell to questioning her spiritual/religious beliefs and denouncing her. And for the record i don't agree with everything Ms Cornell espouses, i just seem to come from the same spiritual place that certain actions by governments/people espouse hate and killing is just wrong!

For the record, i thought that christians posing as war-mongerers and continually using Jesus as a platform to get legislation or agendas out in society is decidely unchristian and questioning this does not make one a traitor.

And posts like yours Melissa just piss me off... get a life. You think you have a moral right to call someone you disagree with 'dumb' makes you decidely hypocritical. I didn't read any part of Lydia's post which has hateful to anyone or disrespecful... can you say the same about yours or do you lack the intelligence to make a valid argument without lowering yourself to name calling and denigration???? reread your post and look at how objective it really is.

so to all you hateful people, if you're going to post something, just use your brain and come up with intelligent debate. Keeping in mind that it is people who are Coulter supporters with hate in their minds who are giving threatening calls and emails.

and that started from what?? information on a website.....

Lydia... totally respect your views, your arguments come from the heart and have a genuine humor to them. Sorry to hear about the turmoil you must be going through, but there are many people like me who respect what you're doing. God bless

Always remember: A communist is a liberal who doesn't lie, a fascist is a liberal with balls. I would love to hear all your enlightened opinions on things like abortion, gun controll, and ACTUAL muzzling of free speech by various statists in the Democratic party, but Jesus told me to ignore tyranny and love peace. Isn't that what he said? That we should sacrifice liberty and true faith for peace? If not, then your obviously confused, and I cant believe that. After all, cool people hate Ann Coulter...... and your the coolest bunch I've ever seen.

If Coulter's speech was intended as satire, I wonder if the audience was laughing (which would mean they were amused); or were they cheering and applauding (which would mean they were heartily endorsing her ideas). When I listen to Al Franken, I laugh.

Lydia: I've never heard Ann Coulter described as a "comedienne/satirist" before. Everyone always refers to her as a "comentator". I think this is a legitimate point of confusion. For example, Al Franken and Mark Shields and folks like them are called "comedians" or "political satirists". If Anne is truly using satire, she should be called a "political satirist" or even a "partisan satirist". The term "commentator" implies serious research and deeply thought out positions on issues that are relevant to or world today. I think this is why everyone is so confused. The majority of her supporters on this page seem to take her quite seriously, yet some defend her as using satire to make points. If everyone understood her as using satire, it wouldn't be such a serious problem, but if you believe her to be a commentator, then her ideas are very hateful. Maybe she's confused herself about what she is.

#150 Thank you Lydia for responding. I, too, am a student of Metaphysics, for 30 years. I do not call myself a Christian because the basic idea of Christianity has been corrupted. The message given by Jesus has been perverted and twisted by those wishing to retain power for all time. I believe the message Jesus was trying to convey was simply to love one another. So simple. This is the same message given by other sages throughout history. How did we come to this place. Christians verses Christians on the meaning of that statement or that statement, the same argument has been going on forever. Seems every Christian church has a different take on what the bible says.

The Kingdom of Heaven is within. We are spiritual beings trying to act human, not the other way around. When one transcends and begins to ask the bigger questions, then one begans to get the answers. Ask and you shall receive, Seek and you shall find, Knock and the door will open. I call it the ASK principal. Many do not question, they follow the 'leader' so to speak. They do not do any personal searching.

I believe in Spiritual Evolution. The goal is to reunite with God. Some are further ahead than others, they are the Wayshowers. The Truthseekers. When one begins to grasp the 'higher' concepts of the Spiritual Reality, they transcend the 'gold' level and begin the climb. The first level is to gain Knowledge, then Understanding, and finally Wisdom.

The majority of people seem to be stuck on the 'gold-matter' level. To me, it is impossible to communicate with these types, as I am coming from a place further along. I see a larger picture and find I have little patience for the endless arguments. A spiritual journey is a two step forward, one step back. I find myself getting caught up in the 'play' and then must remind myself that this is really all an illusion. We are all actors, creating this reality.

I have often read or heard that should it be known the this planet is not the only one in the Universe, that the ramifications would be catastrophic. I did not believe that Americans would be so primitive as to not accept that concept. This thread has certainly enlightened me. M4

Actually, I have read Ann Coulter's work. All of it. Several times. And she does not advocate the killing of all muslims. The direct quote--it's rather famous--was "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." "Their leaders" are somewhat difficult to kill without invading the country, and these "leaders" are people like the Taliban, Houssein, the Ayatollah.... Yes, ma'am, all people have worth in the Lord's eyes, but when it's foaming at the mouth you got to put it down. And as Ann Coulter responded to Katie Couric, "As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean, perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like Christianity."
(This was reported in the Hollywood Reporter as "Do you still believe that's the best way to fight terrorism?" Couric demanded. That quote was taken out of context, Coulter insisted")
And with the "examples" you've given in mind, I have to ask--have you read Ann Coulter's work? I get the distinct impression that knowing what she actually said would make a large difference.

" I want to support our troops by not letting a single soldier die again --- as ten more Marines were killed today!"
--You think they'll say they're sorry and stay there if we leave? Well, they will stay there, for a little while; to retake Iraq, but afer that they'll be back here again. They've made it clear already that it's not troops in Saudi Arabia that has them pissed off; until we convert to islam, jail our homosexuals (yeah--like being in prison is gonna stop 'em...), remove women from any job that has contact with men from waitress to flight attendant, and most importantly get out of the way so they can kill Jews, the attacks are going to continue. Or until they die, and I know which option I prefer.

Likewise, being given a free hand in the middle east means death and calamity in the middle east. Al-Anon is a great organization, ma'am, but the average alcoholic doesn't have a rape room. You want to speak of love, ma'am--where's your love for the Iraqi people? Would you rather they were still being run through the plastic shredders while we danced around with Saddam for a few more years? A few more starve to death while he uses their money to build palaces? Keep up Houssein's $25,000 payments to anyone who murders a Jew? Syria still holding a stranglehold on their own people, Lebanon still basically a vassal state, and Khadafhi/gaddafi/however it's spelled still holding on to his stash of goodies?

"Democracy imposed from without (from outside) would not stick unless they come to it on their own..."
--I must say that here I disagree, and would like to point out such examples as Japan and Germany. In Japan especially, Democracy was imposed from without, and in both countries it seems that the people don't think much of totalitarianism after all. Considering the people joyfully waving ink-stained fingers in Iraq, I don't think they enjoyed their dictatorship much over there either.

By the way, I disagree with Big K, and believe that a 4-10 shotgun is your best bet. Not only is it more effective (by which I mean a derringer-type weapon, or even a sawed-off), but the shot from such a weapon will, in most cases, not pass through walls. It is not unknown for someone to be shot with a .357, and the bullet to pass through the assailant, through a wall, and into the next room.

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you feel we think of the Iraqi people as eggs that might have to be broken in order to make a big "peace in the middle east" omelette. Not only is this not the case, but imagine, if you would, the situation they would be left in were your desires to hold sway.

Praise the Lord! Jesus wants America to spread His democracy to the world. America is the most Christian country in the world! We have the perfect society: no poverty, top-notch education, easy access to health care, zero unemployment, a pristine environment... need I say more? And now we're bringing this paradise to the people of Iraq. Even if we have to kill most of them to do it. It's for their own good, after all. Blessed be God!!!

It is rather amazing that in such a discourse so many use the word I when addressing thought processes. Is this indication of ownership or for the purpose of establishing identity in order to attain superiority ?

Even from the conception of our nation, political difference has been an issue. Hence the Federalists Papers and the Publis. No two people will agree all the time. Within this difference we find what makes our nation great. Even the consititution though you will find the influence of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes as well two somewhat opposing theroists.

Isolationsim and the Monroe Doctrine is not effective. As we know from December 7th 1941 and September 11th 2001. As Dr Samuel Huntington so clearly defined in his work " The Clash of Civilizations" we understand there are natural fault lines. Indeed the Middle East and ethnic cleansing are not synonomous. Remember what happened in Bosnia. Yet again when Christianity meets Islam there are fundemental differences. We live in a world shaped by things like the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and the movement of the Ottoman Empire.

The current world we live in is one of a global economy, wherein commerce causes cultures to interact. Thomas Hobbes said " man lives in a state of nature." Along these lines of thought we must realize that when Power confronts Morality, power will overtake morality. The reason for government is to protect the weak from the bullies who would impose their will upon another. For some unknown reason it was deemed necessary to fly planes into the World Trade Center. Like it or not we are in a fight against a culture who would seek to impose their will upon us.

It may appear as a rather Blind Flash of the Obvious to some, however, learning from history is a good thing. For example, the reason General Lee lost at Gettysburg was because of the fundemental principle of terrain management. He fought a battle on terrain not of his choice and it was disasterous. Have we ever thought that perhaps we are attempting to fight a war against terrorist on terrain of our choosing?? As opposed to fighting it right here on our soil?? Maybe just maybe by taking the fight to them we prevent even more American casualties?? Decisions were made based on the information the leadership had at the time of the decision.

There are some 3,000 plus identified sites where nuclear or biological weapons may be hidden in Iraq. There have been traces in many instances of the prescense of biological weapons. It will take time to search this many sites. As well, there have been Al Queda training camps taken down in Western Iraq. The enemy casualities are not only Iraqi but Iranian, Saudi, Syrian and other's who want to kill Americans. Militarily speaking we are kicking the butts. However, war is war and not fought without casualties.

President Bush did not ask to have 9/11 happen on his watch but it did. Playing the blame game for events is like closing the barn door after the livestock has run off. Yet another absurd comment that the President's policies caused Global Warming and Katrina yet again political wankering. In case anybody wants to know in the late 1800s history shows that more than 42 hurricanes struck the Continental United States.

Making a political discourse, regardless of where it comes from, is making a political argument. There are some things in life that we can never take back; a missed opportunity, a spent bullet, and a spoken word. We are human and make mistakes, however, one of the things required to convict a person of committing a crime is Mens Rea...a guilty state of mind. Political discourse has an intent. Making derogatory statements about another has intent no matter how you classify them.

Nobody deserves to live in a state of fear for speaking their minds. Not Ms Coulter as she identified smear sites encouraging someone to rape her. Nor do you Ms Cornell deserve to have the welfare of you and your family threatened.

It has truly been an honor and a priveledge to have been able to defend our great nation for two decades. While I may not agree with what you say I will defend your right to say it with my life if necessary.

Lydia,
You are a failure in the entertainment industry. I went to your website. Can you say "self-absorbed"? I sure can, with regards to you. I then checked out imdb.com, one of my favorite websites, to see your bio. It sucks.
I love it when people choose to selectively quote Ann to give her a certain image. They can never tell when she's joking or not. I seem to be able to discern pretty well. Also, the e-mail you wrote to Ann (displayed on her website) is disgraceful. You're a backstabber. One second, it's "Oh hello Ann," and the next second it's "Death is sexier than sex to Coulter." And by the way, where did that title even come from? I'm not understanding that. You probably have an obsession with, I don't know, death! You're also obsessed with Ann Coulter. You've written a book (or a "book") about her, which can be found in approximately zero book stores nationwide. You write a long article about her. You're like a jealous imitator of Ann, trying to be controversial and insisting to us that "Really, I'm better than her!" It's just not working.
Remind me when your next movie comes out. I wouldn't want to miss your cameo appearance as "Bra Saleswoman #2." Oh wait--that wasn't a joke! You actually DID play a character...a character named "Bra Saleswoman."

You have a right to free speech, and I am personally glad you do. So, of course do I. I believe you are grotesquely wrong, and perverting Christianity yourself. Giving the choice to destroy a child? Running from your enemies? Disrespecting your president? (Notice I did not say disagreeing with, I said disrespecting). You cannot find a Bible reference that supports any of that, but we have been here giving Bible references to the contrary this whole time.

Oh, and calling people Nazi’s is not satire. It is not funny. It is not meant to be. Continually calling people with a different view than your own not Christian is continually wrong for a Christian to do. It is hate speech, and I have asked that you stop now twice. Continuing do repeat that is not going to get converts to your side.

As for the sick trash that have been coming to your home I refer to my earlier statement. Get a gun, a “strap,” a “gat,” whatever you want to call it. Jesus said to sell your robe and buy a sword, He would not have a problem with it, I am sure.

Redneck, I must concede your point. The shotgun would be a better choice. Even more fearful, and nothing makes someone who is doing something they know is wrong jump like hearing a shotgun lock and load. Good call.

Who cares if the "artists are more emotion-based and reach deep into the human soul." If emotions are wrong then they are fodder. Feeling something does not give you any type of moral authority. In fact, one of the reasons people think Bush went to war was to get back for the failure of his father. If that is the case, it means that he was feeling anger and hatred, which, according to your beliefs, would be OK because it was heart felt. But NOOOO. That is when the stipulations come in. Someone can only feel what you WANT them to feel. Whenever it goes against your feelings then it is wrong. Right wing extremists feel that they are correct. Left wing extremists feel that they are correct. For some reason the Right wing is nuts and the Left wing is enlightened. Why? Both are drawing off the same heart felt emotions? Jack Nicholson said it best in ‘As Good As It Gets’. . .

Woman: How do you write women so well?
Melvin: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

This is obviously a gross generalization about women, but the point is that it is a putdown. We all either laughed if we were men or got upset if we were women because we all know that we don’t want a lack of reason or accountability to rule our daily lives.

Here is the sticking point. You want feeling to play a role in politics? Our system will consist of those that feel and those that think. Then, whenever money has to be doled out for things that someone ‘feels’ is necessary but really isn’t, those that actually have a clue about accounting are forced to step into the non-feeling area of government and cut spending for something that isn’t necessary although people may feel that way. Then comes the hate speech from the feeling people, ‘oh, they don’t really love the [insert any left wing cause not provided for in the constitution here]’. In reality it doesn’t work if you want a non-divided political nation because the truth is that the feeling people cannot sit back and ever concede the fact that sometimes their feelings aren’t important. They use this propaganda to push their agenda. You cannot use the argument that it SHOULD work, communism SHOULD work, but guess what, the only political and economic system that will ever work will be one that plays on the innermost human nature while keeping some sort of moral check. As soon as you try and change human nature you are fighting a losing battle.

PS
M4, you study metaphysics, is that a science? What scientific evidence do you have of your religious beliefs? How do you know? What separates your belief from anyone elses? Just wondering…eeling something does not give you any type of moral authority.

Ms. Cornell,
How can you call democrates Christians? These are the same people who are advocating for abortion to be legal and same sex marriage. During my study of the bible I never once read where Jesus okays the killing of an innocent baby so another slut doesn't have to pay the price of having sex outside of marriage, which by the way, is also a no-no in the view of Christians, in case you were wondering. And I also must have missed the part where same sex marriage was okay. I was taught that marriage was between a man and a woman, not between two queers. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

...Go to the link here [the lame hit piece] called the Gospel of Ann. She espouses killing all Muslims --- and converting them to Christianity...

-Lydia Cornell

Ms. Cornell, this is an outrageous lie. Maybe this is what you "feel" she "feels", but it remains a lie nevertheless. Perhaps you could give us a direct quote with a link, or failing that, a sincere apology. Otherwise this would be an opportunity for you to demonstrate what a fine, self-righteous Christian you are by repenting for bearing false witness against your neighbor.

A bit of advice: If you are going to tell intentional lies about such "a hateful person", perhaps it would be better not to botch one of her most famous quotes. As RedNeck said, the quote is "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" [we've already done 1 & 2; 3 is perhaps tongue-in-cheek wishful thinking].

I suspect that instead of an apology, you will attempt to spin that killing vicious terrorist leaders is somehow equivalent to killing all Muslims --- then everyone will learn what a transparent liberal hypocrite you are. Or try diversion; tell us how W supposedly lied about WMD--that's a good plan.

I suggest you address this egregious error if you intend to salvage any shred of credibility from your tattered reputation. Ann Coulter may hold some controversial opinions, but they are based in fact, not ephemeral "feeling". Unlike you she is truthful; you are not worthy to shine her shoes.

BTW I concur with other Conservatives who suggest that you buy a firearm to defend yourself and your family from crackpots, if they are indeed real. Or persist with the liberal approach: Blame other people for making you a victim, and trust the police to protect you, as if you were a helpless child of the nanny state. And if you ever care to know real courage like Ann has, try gently criticizing the islamist head-choppers.

Thanks for proving what I have already believed that absolute pro-lifers are more about hating certain sections of society to justify their own misguided minds than the reality of human existence.

Last time I checked, the bible did not advocate hating people nor did Jesus become a mouth piece for extremists. You tell me in the bible where Jesus advocates people like yourself are the only people in society with a worthwhile opinion or soul?? What... it isn't in there, funny that.

From a historical point of view, most of the Bible is deeply contentious and debatable. Every one of your points can be stated comes from your complete and utter lack of empathy and understanding for people in society who don't fit your oh so perfect mold. And your utter lack of intelligence to state that people who belong to the democrat party are not real christians, please! Are you completely delusional that you believe what you are saying.

Never mind the fact that half of the teachings you so obviously choose not to practice..... I pity any children you have to grow up with such hostility to any deviation from the perfect christian life.

so tell us about your fantastic life then buddy? What are your crowning achievements in life?

One of your obvious past times is slagging off anyone who dares criticize your dumb idol Ann Coulter who by the way seems to be pissing off a whole bunch of people lately....

At least Lydia Cornell has tact and respect something your idol has never possessed and never, ever will. It just shows your intelligence level that you couldn't come up with a single respectful remark in your column. And since when does appearing on the O'Reilly show and offending everyone in the nation make Ms Coulter a remarkable human being?

Your wrong dear girl on saying that Jesus would be a Democrat. Not the way the Demoncrats enjoy taking the life of pre-born humans(better known as babies to most of the world) with their staunch support of abortion. Plus I think JC might refrain from making Sen Wellstone's funeral a political rally. Let's just agree that Jesus would be an Independent and let it go at that, OK?

"Thanks for proving what I have already believed that absolute pro-lifers are more about hating certain sections of society to justify their own misguided minds than the reality of human existence."
--Perhaps my knowledge of biology is lacking, because I have no idea where you pulled this statement from.

"Last time I checked, the bible did not advocate hating people"
--And neither did KL. Funny that.

"nor did Jesus become a mouth piece for extremists."
--"Women shouldn't be allowed to murder their own children to escape the consequences for their own promiscuity" is extreme (and yes, the vast majority of abortions are for exactly that reason)? Then I guess you don't want to hear my idea of welfare queens and abusive parents being sterilized, huh?

"From a historical point of view, most of the Bible is deeply contentious and debatable"
--Here's a hint--"The evidence is right in front of me but I refuse to believe it" doesn't translate to "Deeply contentious and debatable." It didn't work with Alger Hiss, it didn't work with the Rosenburgs; it sure ain't gonna work on God.

"And your utter lack of intelligence to state that people who belong to the democrat party are not real christians, please!"
--Yeah, just because they spit on Christianity, display an absolute hostility to it, and flagrantly violate all its teachings doesn't really mean anything...

"You truly show what I never hope to become."
--Capable of using common sense? I'd have given up hope if I were you too.

"At least Lydia Cornell has tact and respect something your idol has never possessed and never, ever will."
--Because calling someone the Antichrist and the Taliban shows such a high level of both. Obviously, you're not much of a fan of either concept, yourself.

Wild Fire,
Your attack on Coulter and Support for Cornell holds no water. Check credentials.

What just because you have a different opinion means we have to allow or resoect it, NO. The Nazi's had a different opinion, i guess they would be alllowed in you love and respect everybody world. One thing that i has always held true was that the people who preach Tolerance are the most intolerant.

Pro-Lifers don't hate people who support Abortion, though we may deem them immoral, we hate abortion. Obviously if you ask any "pro-lifer" if the baby should be aborted; to save the mother, the child already dead, or the child has been SEVERELY malformed, they would most likely agree. However these instances occur at such a low percentage of the time. The majority of abortions are performed as birth control.

Is there a perfect mold, YES, does anyone of us fit it, no. Only GOD can read the human heart, do you believe in god, because the way i see it since there has been no proof against his existence i would believe just to be on the safe side. I mean you wouldn't want to go around talkin shit about God when you really don't know if he exists or not, or you could take that chance if you want.

Finally I pity any children you have becasuse
A) they will most likely be aborted
B) they will be a pussy Democrat like you
C) my children will beat the piss out of them at the school yard cause your kids would want to play "non competitive" games

And no, i don;t preach tolerance so i reserve the right to be as intolerant as i want.

"For some unknown reason it was deemed necessary to fly planes into the World Trade Center. Like it or not we are in a fight against a culture who would seek to impose their will upon us."

I'm seeing quite a few thoughtful posts by conservatives here. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them - reasonable sounding but ultimately grounded in very little at all.

Unknown reason? A fight against a culture that would seek to impose their will on us? Well, I think anyone who keeps up with what we laughingly call the news has a pretty good idea what al Qaida's thinking was behind 9/11 - they wanted to force us into a conflict where they could hurt us directly and, most importantly, economically. Why?

Because after spectacularly failing to instill their brand of radical Islamicism throughout the Middle East, and further getting snubbed by the Saudis as mujaheddin against Iraq in favor of the U.S. military before the first Gulf War, bin Ladin and his associates noted that the U.S. the power behind both Israel and the authoritarian, corrupt, Muslim states that had opposed them.

So how to get some steam back after failing so spectacularly in Egypt and Algeria? Hit a big target and a big target even moderate Muslims blame for a host of wrongs. And count on America either cowering out of a response or coming to Afghanistan where the greatest victory of the proto-al Qaida was won against The Soviets. To them it was a win-win. What they didn't count on was The Taliban and themselves being so despised, and American special forces/CIA units being so effective, that Afghanistan hardly burped before spitting them out.

Then we had to go and screw things up with Iraq which, essentially, became what al Qaida had dreamed Afghanistan was going to be...

But there are many Muslims, who with rational reasons to mistrust American intentions, mistrust Islamic extremists every bit as much. I'm more worried about the Christian right in this country trying to tell me how to live my life than I am some fatwah spewing goober in Pakistan.

The problem is that we're driving alot of Muslims right into the hands of bin Ladin thanks to our operations in Iraq - this according to many studies by serious strategic think tanks and our own CIA. If you haven't read them, get on it.

While I'll admit it's very hard for me to defend the original article here, attempts at irony aside - it really does take a Frankin to pull off a Frankin, this is one commentary I had to respond to. And there's more but I'm just too longwinded for this format. But I will say that the idea that responding to violence with yet more violence and exaggerating the hostility between two groups, in this case, is something neither Pope John Paul nor the Dali Lama could get with. My guess is that Jesus probably leans closer over that way than to an Ann Coulter. But that's beyond my area of expertise.

According to many studies? Which ones? Show some proof, you started out so well. Give me something to debate here. I could just as easily state that reading liberal blogs cause cancer according to some major experts. Does not mean it holds any water.

And Wild Fire,

Jesus would be considered an extremist today, no doubt about it. He was an extremist in his own time. Give away all you own to the poor and follow Me. Sell your cloak and buy a sword. He knew he would be persecuted and killed, and told his followers that they were no better, and the same fate would happen to them. They should accept it gladly. Parables concerning bad seeds of undesirable plants being thrown into fires. People being cast out of banquets and weddings. I do not know how much of the Bible you have read, but there is a whole lot of “lamenting, and gnashing of teeth” in there.

As I noted, the whole Jesus thing really isn't a speciality of mine but I do understand, I think, how people could come to adore his teachings, long-haired, crazy and radical as they were in their time and in ours.

But every time I see some raving lunatic waving signs, shouting poorly considered rhetorical tripe that could make a Stalinist blush, while planning to "retake" a country that was founded, wisely, on the notion of the seperation of Church and State (argue the nuances all you like but Ben Franklin alone has a wealth of quotes about the leadership of organized religion you really don't want me to start dredging up) I kind of get over my sentimental notions about what's happened those ideals of his.

I see how poorly they've been transmitted, it seems, to his most visible supporters. Lots of judging and stone casting. Very little meekness and humility.

I don't see sheep, I see wolves not even bothering with a disguise. I see moneychangers in the temple discussing political campaigns and coordinating marketing with Caesar's brightest praetorians. But like I said, that's not my thing. I'm with the reality based community.

"But every time I see some raving lunatic waving signs, shouting poorly considered rhetorical tripe that could make a Stalinist blush, while planning to "retake" a country that was founded, wisely, on the notion of the seperation of Church and State (argue the nuances all you like but Ben Franklin alone has a wealth of quotes about the leadership of organized religion you really don't want me to start dredging up)"
--Yeah, the Founding Fathers didn't want a theocracy--congratulations, you won that argument before it even started. Who you won it against, I'm not sure, but take heart in that you won.
Nor did they intend for a government that protects each citizen's right to never, ever see or hear the word "God".

"Then we had to go and screw things up with Iraq which, essentially, became what al Qaida had dreamed Afghanistan was going to be..."
--Iraqis have voted in free elections and are going to do so again soon. While they are killing American troops, we're killing a whole lot more of them than they're killing of anybody--us included, and Iraq's neighbors are starting to reject them and their ideology, such as in Syria and Lebanon. This is not what Al-Qaeda dreamed of.

Bin Laden himself made his position clear--Al-Qaeda will continue attacking us until the entire United States converts to islam, withdraws all support from Israel so they can kill Jews at their leisure, completely dissolve our Constitution, jail all our homosexuals (yeah, like being in prison is gonna stop 'em....), remove all women from any job where they may interact with men, and pretty much adopt shari'a law.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. The British still think Iraq was looking for material for banned weapons, and here is a page of their report on the lead up to the war. This is obtained from their web site, they still think it is relevant. That Sadam was looking for this material. By the way, the French, the Russians, and the Germans thought the same thing. Merifour, enjoy the pictures.

Big K: Look, these are studies and sources quoted in stories in papers of record and repute. You don't have to like it but if you can't refute it don't waste bandwidth.

The Redneck: I don't think even most liberals have much against the idea of a god, gods or whathaveyou. The problem is people pushing religion as a substitute for rational lawmaking. Sure, there are some nuts on the fringe who get lathered up about anything. Both sides of this debate have plenty of nuts making real discussions difficult. Right now, though, the nuts I'm worried about are the kind who could get the President to fly in from Crawford to sign legislation about a private family matter in Florida. That's some scarey power.

You care to fill me in, though, on exactly why you even think bin Ladin cares about what happens in the USA aside from how our policies affect his, rabidly delusional, caliphate dreams? Al Qaida's goal is neutralizing us and driving us out of the lands they claim. Obviously we can't afford to let this happen for a host of reasons.

The main thing that should have really been debated and discussed was the right strategic response (beyond the Afghanistan strike - a required step in just about any rational person's book) to counter these aims. Instead this administration fell into the hands of an ideology that fed them a plan that had been laying around for decades and then forced the facts to fit the plan.

You said in your first post that “this according to many studies by serious strategic think tanks and our own CIA.” The CIA and the Washington Post are not the same people, as much as the Post may think they should be. My point is that you cannot rely on someone’s interpretation of these reports. Obtain them, peruse them at your leisure, and let us all in on what you find.

The problem with reading someone else’s opinion on this stuff is they add their own feelings to the report. This does not help things. They paraphrase one person’s doubt, and call it the entire department. They use sound bites to get their point across, but at the peril of misrepresenting. It is so prevalent in all news outlets today that it is advisable to read the reports they cite yourselves, and not rely on their 2 page summary of a 119 page report.

Redneck, again I must agree. Most everyone here, at least the ones I have been reading and responding to, claim Christianity as their religion. Yes, separation of church and state is a good thing, but not what we are discussing here. See again Ann Coulter’s descriptions of how liberals argue. Constantly dodging the arguments they can not win by pulling something else out of left field to occupy your time.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, as that would obviously infringe on freedom of speech.

Big K: I do feel kind of embarrassed that I have to explain this but newspapers only tend to cover stories about studies that are newsworthy. They don't reprint the entire study and frankly I don't have the time to go on a snipe hunt to appease a random forum debater. There's information in there and you can either address it or decide that anything in The Washington Post or from the BBC is instantly suspect. If the latter's the case you and I are operating in different realities and further discussion is a waste of our time.

Hey buddy, it was you that took a shot across the bow mentioning that we all should read the "studies by serious strategic think tanks and our own CIA." You made no mention of news articles. I stated why I did not want to respond to the Post and you have no explanation why I should other than they choose their stories by what they think will sell. Making my point precisely, I do not care what sells. The truth does not necessarily sell.

Please, if you are going to attack me, at least be precise in your speech to begin with. My second post in response to you said that I would not post stuff from sources you would obviously dismiss as well. I thought this would be a decent enough compromise. Otherwise we will be doing nothing but stating opposite sides of the same reports as discussed in major news outlets and neither of us will have read the original reports. That is useless.

Wild Fire,
I don't hate abortionists. "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." And the first amendment gives me the right to speak out against people who enjoy sleeping around. Thats my opinion. And it also gives you the right to speak out. So feel free to spout uncontrolably, which is what liberals are good at. Your not going to change my opinion or anyone else's until you learn how to debate intelligently.

Big K: Is every news story unbiased or as good as having your hands on primary sources? No. Only a fool would answer otherwise. However, come on, The Washington Post is broadly recognised as a high quality newspaper. The editorial board even endorsed the whole Iraq foolishness, much to my dismay. They're untrustworthy how again? And only in America, in certain circles, is the BBC seen as anything other than mainstream.

Now there is content in these stories relating to studies you seemed to imply didn't exist. While I admire your tap-dancing shoes, it's time to either dance or get off the stage. I'm not impressed with semantics and wriggling. You have some information to make me think Iraq isn't a hotbed of recruiting and training for future Jihadis in a way it could never have been before we invaded, put it up.

This is like a scene from Night of The Living Dead. You fill the critter full of buckshot but it keeps on lurching ahead not realizing it's already toast.

Redneck and Big K your responses to Autarkis are much more eloqent and articulate than what will by my own meager rebuttal.

Obviously Autarkis has insight to the Al Queda Terrorist mind set, which I do not. Flying planes into the World Trade Center killing thousands of innocent people is not something I am able to comprehend. I do not read the Washington Post, BBC nor the New York Times or by this standard any other " Think Tank" type products.

Of course Autarkis' champion addressed the situation correctly in January of 98 when he ordered the US Navy to fire missiles into Afganistan. What an utter stroke of brilliance that ended the entire Middle Eastern dilemma.

Oh wait perhaps that was premature I almost forgot about the bombing of US Embassies and the USS Cole. Ahhh but of course we must first ask what would a journalist do ?? Heck we cannot go to ABC now because Katie Courric is going to CBS now so let us proceed to the greatest think tanks the Washington Post and for good measure throw in the New York Times.

I call the Democratic Party the " Feel Good Society" You know " If you can't be with the one you love then love the one you are with." The champions of the Feel Good Society have created a dangerous world, sold missle secrets to the Chinese for donations to the Democratic Party and created an utter mess in the Middle East. After all we need claim no responsibility for that and we can leave that for someone else to clean up.

Amazingly statistics show that more than 80 percent of college graduates voted for GW in the past two elections. Awww rats only 27 percent of the American population has a 4 year degree. Even more perplexing is that an even higher percentage of the US Military voted for GW in the past two elections. Yet again when we add up all the full or part time military personnel we come up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 million which is less than one half of one percent of the entire US population.

One thing about a Revisionists is that they can always bend the truth into a lie and they are much better at it than I am. I concede to their brilliance.

You set a light bulb off in my head. Maybe news agencies should start citing their sources. I mean nobody who has any ounce of intelligence actually reads any newspaper or watches any news channel and takes anything at face value. Thats the problem here. Just as you said, you don;t have the time, so you take what you read and see to be absolute. Both sides do this. And the biggest travesty of all, people don;t use common sense. We livein the age of the Designer Communist and Punk Kids listening to anti-capitalist music on thier IPODS. America has truly lost its spirit through the push towards litiginousness (sp). When did the Gov't start deciding what was good for the minority and imposing it on other people ie. Atheism anything that preaches "tolerance"; not letting kids play competitive games at school and proposing jumping rope without a rope, because that way, you can't mess up.

I'm not even American... lol. But thanks for asking me what my political persuasion was! Before slagging me off, how about actually asking what my politiical beliefs are huh?

For the record abortion is the most performed medical procedure in the world, in spite of the pro-life movement stating that it's done mainly by promiscuous women, most women who have abortions are in stable relationships, they have many, many reasons for not wanting to bring a child in the world.

As for not realising the facts of the bible.... well shoot me down. Didnt realise every part of it was 'factual'.... lol. I like everyone else have my own interpretation on the text like i do of the Qu-aran and other religious texts. And yest I have looked at other's besides the bible.

As to you KL, when you spew vitriol you are showing your little-mindedness and hatred. Sorry, but that's my point of view on you.

Glad to see the amount of non-intelligent debate in relation to my posts though.... shows me what type of hostility it's soo easy to generate in people.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, per se. But I have read the Bible and know Christ's story fairly well. I admire Jesus greatly. To put forth the view that he was a "democrat" as has been alleged is false. Jesus would not have been impressed with such a thing as a political party. Any party. Give unto Caesar...

Was Jesus a liberal? He was compassionate. People point out that he "hung out" with prostitutes and other criminals. But they are making this out to sound like he believed in what they were doing.

I do not think he supported prostitutes in becoming prostitutes. I think he believed there was something better to them than just selling their bodies for money. He was capable of forgiveness but he did not believe allowing the sin to go on was acceptable.

People make much of the high priests and Pharisees. I submit that Jesus was taking on their own sin, that of hypocrisy and spiritual bankruptcy. He was firm with them, indeed harsh. But had one of them turned around and seen the error of their ways, do we doubt He would have forgiven a Pharisee any more or less than a prostitute? I do not think so.

Prostitutes had their sins. Pharisees their own. We all have our failures and sins. Any of them were forgiveable for Christ, but I do not think it is meant that we continue doing the sin in question. I think Jesus was harsh and forgiving on all who sinned. That is because it is universal to be frail and human. But to say he condoned prostitution because he "hung out" with prostitutes is absurd. I think it would be more coherent to say that prostitutes and other people who sinned, hung out with Jesus. I do not think he would have met them on their own terms, but rather on His.

Thus a prostitute or a thief might find forgiveness with Jesus. But if a thief advocated more theft, would Jesus not have given him a piece of His mind? Or would he have been tough and blunt in his word choice? Would Jesus have
"hung out" with such a crook day after day while the crook continued stealing? Not a chance.

Jesus confronted people with truth. Bluntly. He did not suffer liars easily. He forgave them when they came clean but He would set anyone straight who was messing up. We all do. We all need a straight dose of truth in regards to our failings. Popularly called, "tough love."

So no, I do not think Jesus was a liberal as those here would try and present him. Unless you say a liberal is one who forgives wrongs. But ONLY after taking responsibility for one's wrongs and sins. If you did not TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for said things, then one could not be forgiven.

In that way, in that demand for facing the truth, however painful about one's self, and taking responsibility for one's actions, Jesus is in fact much more of a conservative than a liberal, at least as thought of by our current political culture.

I don't think he would have identified as either liberal or conservative. Certainly not a member of either political party. These are human institutions that are replete with all of human foibles and weaknesses. The stuff of Caesar, not God.

But I think it is patently false to say he was a liberal merely because he allowed for redemption. It came only AFTER penance. Not before. The only person who seemed to be guaranteed entry into Heaven was the thief on the cross next to Him. One crook demands of Jesus salvation. He still thinks only of himself. The other, realizes that he has in fact himself been a sinner. He says that he deserves what he has gotten, unlike Jesus.

The man takes responsibility for his decisions and his actions. Jesus tells him that he will be with Him in paradise. Jesus does not tell the other criminal that he probably grew up poor and misunderstood and maybe had an abusive father or any other excuses for his crimes. He doesn't say, "You're both going to make it upstairs today." No. He tells the one who has seen that forgiveness demands acknowledgment that one has wronged another.

Liberals, out of "compassion", do not demand responsibility of others. They think this is a greater virtue. It is in fact, a form of avoidance of truth. Pointing out that He "hung out" with criminals is bogus. Criminals came to Christ. Compassion does not mean telling a crook, "it's ok what you do. I love you anyway." It would mean telling the crook "You're a crook. And I'm telling you that because I love you. But knock it the hell off, or get lost. I don't hang with crooks."

So I dispute the idea that Jesus was a "liberal." He believed in human potential with a keen temperence that understood human weakness. He was tough on sinners. He was in their faces. But when they submitted to the obvious, their very weaknesses, he forgave.

Finally, I think preening on about how wonderful one is because one is so "compassionate" would have been knocked down by Jesus as well. It would have come under the sin of vanity or self congradulation. And I think he could have forgiven such vanity from anyone.

Think we would be better pulling out right now? Let us hear from the leader of the opposition on this whole mess, none other than Osama himself…..

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu."

Is there no hope, no people in Iraq that are counting on us to finish the job? Their recruits keep getting targeted for killing in all kinds of ways, yet they have lines to apply wrapping around the buildings. Iraq had a better voter turnout than we did last year with 63% voting percentage.

The majority of the Iraqi's want this, and are willing to fight and die for it. From my friends over there, they tell me they were not scared while they were there, it is when they read the news when they got back that they were worried about their friends. The news is not telling us everything.

" Right now, though, the nuts I'm worried about are the kind who could get the President to fly in from Crawford to sign legislation about a private family matter in Florida. That's some scarey power"
--Because in Florida, dammit, you can murder your wife if you want, and ain't no religious nuts gonna be stickin' their noses in!

"You care to fill me in, though, on exactly why you even think bin Ladin cares about what happens in the USA aside from how our policies affect his, rabidly delusional, caliphate dreams?"
--Several statements from bin Laden himself. He hasn't exactly made a secret of his goals, here.

" I do feel kind of embarrassed that I have to explain this but newspapers only tend to cover stories about studies that are newsworthy."
--You're joking here, right?

"Now there is content in these stories relating to studies you seemed to imply didn't exist. While I admire your tap-dancing shoes, it's time to either dance or get off the stage."
Do you have the studies or don't you? You scared to let him see them except through a liberal filter?

"This is like a scene from Night of The Living Dead. You fill the critter full of buckshot but it keeps on lurching ahead not realizing it's already toast."
--If this is Night of the Living Dead then the zombies already got to your brains....

"I find it incredulous people assume I'm a democrat..."
--Just because you defend everything the Democrats stand for doesn't really mean anything....

"I'm not even American... lol."
That's alright, neither are most Democrats.

"For the record abortion is the most performed medical procedure in the world, in spite of the pro-life movement stating that it's done mainly by promiscuous women, most women who have abortions are in stable relationships, they have many, many reasons for not wanting to bring a child in the world."
--According to Planned Parenthood themselves, more than 90% of abortions are from women who don't want to raise the child. Sluts, in other words, who don't want to deal with the consequences of their promiscuity.

"As to you KL, when you spew vitriol you are showing your little-mindedness and hatred. Sorry, but that's my point of view on you."
This would makd quote of the year. You're accusing others of "little-mindedness" and hatred. You were just making a bad joke, right? Deliberately, I mean...

"Glad to see the amount of non-intelligent debate in relation to my posts though.... shows me what type of hostility it's soo easy to generate in people."
You start out by claiming that someone thinks more of hate than reality, go on to speak of their "utter lack of empathy" for those who don't "fit their perfect mold", call them delusional, support Ms. Cornell's slander as "Tactful and respectful"--and then speak of non-intelligent debate in relation to your posts? In relation to your posts, the rants of a homeless schizophrenic on speed could be considered intelligent debate.

And you wonder why people think of you as a Democrat.

"So you're a good Christian (not a liberal pro-choice) who espouses that most women who get abortions are sluts and also that you're a proud homophobe (at least when it comes to marriage).
--These women are murdering their kids, and this SOB is implying their promiscuous? Burn him! Tie him to the stake and BURN HIM! BURN HIM ALIIIIIIIVE!!!!
And he doesn't want the government to force us to pretend that two homosexuals sharing their disorder are a legitimate marriage. Oh, the horror...

"Yeah, remind me again how to have an intelligent debate with you?"
--Well, first you grasp your right ear with your right hand. Then you grasp your left ear with your left hand. Then you pull--and continue to pull with a firm, even pressure until your head emerges completely from your ass.

Richmond: If you actually read those stories you'd, um, see the sources named and cited. I take everything I read or see with a grain of salt, don't own an IPOD, and supported McCain in 2000. However I've read very broadly and tend to have a pretty good track record in sorting out facts. I'm an independant and highly skeptical of everyone but it is nice to see folks like Jeff so quick to assume so much about someone they don't even know. However it would be correct to say my opinion of conservatives is at an all time low.

Big K: Yes, and Reagan "sought" to build up a super-duper system of satellite laser guns to blow up ICBMs. If bin Ladin was having so much success why'd he have to flee Sudan for Afghanistan which later utterly failed to defend him or his Taliban hosts? How'd he get disowned by Saudi Arabia? Why did al Qaida's operations in Algeria and Egypt all but collapse? Look even a loser can be dangerous given enough resources and with fanatical enough followers.

Attacking a country that had nothing to do with bin Ladin, aside from trying to infiltrate his group because Saddam saw them as a threat, only gave credence to their propaganda that the U.S. wanted to remake the Middle East in our own image. We made bin Ladin's case for him like the rocket scientists we are. Now if you don't want to believe the reports cited above in those articles that's up to you. Who wouldn't rather believe in unicorns, rainbows and pixie dust over the butt-ugly truth? And if it's not the truth that we actually created a worse situation because of our invasion, prove it.

Also interesting, why change the subject to whether or not we should pull out? What relationship does this bear to anything we were discussing? Did I say that was a good idea? Oh, we're assuming again. How nice.

+ Is "Maximus" a gratuitous assertion about the depth of your intellect? Or perhaps the girth of your "manliness"? Or maybe the width or your hips, assuming, like Ms. Cornell, that a functioning uterus grants its owner with esoteric insights into the nature of reality?

+ Is asserting my ignorance your considered opinion or the bloviations of an ideologue in full cognitive surrender? Is your attempt at mental masturbation, i.e. your ham-fisted retort using my summary quotation against me without any effort to refute any of the facts & points previously expressed the best your “rapier wit” can generate?

AIM is a spin org. No bones about it. Not to be trusted even by conservatives, at least not the foolish ones. If there are any left. For example, the article you cite is about the Schiavo memo which later that very Senator's aid admitted to writing. Let me help you out:http://www.washingtonpos...les/A32554-2005Apr6.html

CAMERA is a pro-Israeli media pressure group. The article you cite dwells on semantics of what various Palestian terrorist or militant groups, take your pick it's all the same to me, are called by The Post. Hardly inaccurate, hardly dishonest reporting. This is a group with an agenda trying to get their interpretation of the facts spun into the coverage. I'm sure there's an Arab group out there somewhere complaining in an equal and opposite direction.

And the last is from a cite called "Oh, That Liberal Media." Yeah. Okay. Speaks for itself. There's a laundry list of supposed trangressions that, and frankly the rantosphere probably has a special orbit set aside for these guys, basically boil down to how you interpret what The Post, or anyone else for that matter, is saying. I'll just hit the top story: White Phosphorous in Falluja. The only mention of The WP is that of the blogger, not a beat reporter, William Arkin. The problem seems to be that he's citing sources this guy doesn't like and isn't willing to claim a legal expertise about whether WP is a chemical weapon that is outlawed by international treaty. Positively damning.

Here you were whining about chewing up bandwidth a few posts ago and you want me to put more of the 9-11 Commission report in here?

Also, Zarqawi was found to be in Iraq at least as early as Feb 2003. I guess you might sat he was vacationing, seeing their sites. Like the plastic shredders and the mass graves.

We had plenty of reasons to go after Saddam. Honestly, I wish the administration had at least pointed them out more before the onset of hostilities. They had contraband weapons. That is a fact, Al Samoud 2 missiles had a range that was more than the peace accords allowed. And we have found some various warheads with chemical weapons here and there, just not the amount we figured (and you almost have to be glad they are honest enough not to grab one warhead and call the whole thing justified by that. Do you think many other politicians would have that restraint?). The Oil for Food scandal was reason enough to go after him. Let us also not forget that Saddam is not going to be winning any Nobel Peace Prizes for his treatment of his own people.

The mobile labs were also pretty damning. It showed a desire to continue the process of research. They had tried something that anyone in their right mind would say would not work, but the point is he was exploring his options.

We are going to be better off with an ally in the area, and I think after the Iraqi’s gain control of their space that will be what happens. They will be grateful for the help getting rid of Saddam. They will find more economic security, and more security in general. There is no study I can point to on this, we will have to wait and see. The difference is I am willing to wait before I throw the idea out the window. That is why I posted what I did about pulling out. We simply can not do it. And, I think everyone knows it despite what they say. we can not entertain the idea.

One more thing. There is a short story here so bear with me. Euripides, a Greek tragedian wrote in a play (Hecuba I think, but if you insist I can look it up. I own the book) that Odysseus was arguing about a sacrifice at the grave of Achilles. He said that unless due honor to the fallen dead is observed, how can we expect others to fight and protect us in the future? If you read the play, you know his overall point was flawed, but that statement rings very true. We have just over 2000 dead there. If we do not finish, our own troops will begin thinking we should not fight for such an ungrateful nation. We will turn into the French.

Oh, and 17 UN resolutions to let our inspectors in was another good reason to kick Saddam's butt.

Honestly, Desert Storm we should have finished the job. For the life of me I can not figure out why he did not do it. Bush the elder might have even been re-elected had he shown his bells were ringing like Notre Dame and just done it. But still, when in history does a nation lose a war, lose their territory, and still keep their sovereignty? Saddam just did not realize he dodged a bullet, and he should have played nicer. 17 resolutions, and the UN was powerless to do any more than scoff at him.

It should make people angry also the UN is such a powerless institution now.

Big K: Where was Zarqawi in Iraq? Hanging out in Baghdad with Saddam and shooting pool in a rape room? Or maybe hiding out up north in Kurdish territory that the Ba'athists had no control over? Here's an educational nugget to chew on.

Yup. I'm sure the public would have been sold on the war based on the argument that 12, count 'em, conventional warhead missiles had been developed that exceeded the legal range. Sure, the British "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction" dossier elected to speculate they might be able to jigger something else for a payload but, then again, that dossier has its own problems, now, doesn't it?

Please document your claims of WMD finds and, please, make it better than a pair of crusty Iraq-Iran war era mustard gas shells someone left in an abandoned bunker.

Saddam was a scumbag. Nobody sensible is going to argue that. Now we have license to invade scumbags for the heck of it? Unlike, say, Kosovo there was absolutely no consensus in the region, much less the world, that Saddam was a serious threat to anybody. Otherwise why the resistance to joining us after so many offers of overwhelming support, which we initially spurned just to make a point about our do-it-yourselferness, in Afghanistan?

And it probably is worth sticking a neural footnote in the old cranium that when Saddam was doing the vast, vast, majority of his killing we were his staunch allies. Who killed more Iraqis in the last 10 years is a more reasonable standard? Up for bets? I got a five-spot here that's burning a hole. But for your own sake, don't ask the former Prime Minister, and ex-CIA asset, Allawi what he thinks about our "progress." Not-a-gonna-likee the answer.

Good luck with the happy Iraqi thing. It's working out nicely and if you keep on reading Coulter and watching Fox you'll be very pleased with our astounding progress. Rainbows and unicorns and pixie dust.

I will admit, and this does wipe the smug right off my face, that I don't know what to do about Iraq. I honestly think we civilians, we citizens, don't have the kind of information we really need to come to an informed decision about the best long term plan. Bush's administration is utterly incompetant and untrustworthy and they're sure not in a rush to get into the nuts and bolts of what's going on, province by province, with us and at this point I doubt I'd believe anything they had to say. The media can't cover all the bad news, much less the rumored good news, in Iraq because people are trying to blow them away! How am I going to get a good overview from that source?

I feel like I'm in a sandstorm and left my goggles and scarf in the glove compartment. Where we might agree is that if we pull out, without a plan, we create a massive problem. Hell, even with the supa bestest plan in the whole world we're looking at a FUBAR situation. It really looks like that place is sliding over into civil war to me. It really looks like the Shiites will be in charge, they have the numbers and make up most of the "military", and they're in bed with Iran at least the ones with the broadest popular support.

Neocons ain't going to be loving this very much but it's diplomacy time. We need to hammer out an understanding with Iran that's mutually beneficial or Iraq's screwed. I know, we hate the ayatollahs because they wear funny hats and claim they want to destroy Israel and burn flags. Funny hats and burning flags, we can live with. And nobody with a still functioning brainstem, much less both lobes in full bloom, thinks Iran will launch a serious attack on a nuclear power. And don't tell me Israel doesn't have nukes. Hell, he's the first kid on the block to get this and now everybody else wants one.

Seriously though. We got ourselves in a crappy, moronic, situation and we need to figure out how to get ourselves out. The tricky part, and it's currently beyond me, is figuring out how to do that without making things much, much, worse.

I have an astounding amount of respect for our troops. I'd have sent alot more of them for security's sake, victory's sake, if I was convinced they had to go and would have made sure they were better equipped. I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to cut VA benefits, oh, I'm sorry - limit the rate of spending artificially.

These guys are in the shit in alot of the country. I have the honor of knowing a Marine that was in the Falluja assault. This is one stand-up guy. I don't know how many of us could have done the things he did, clearing bodies from rubble for days on end after blistering firefights, and still smile about it. One tough Marine. But if we've screwed up here, as I believe we have, how are the troops served by letting them fight and die for a cause that may be pointless or even counter-productive? Sure, they don't want to think they fought in vain, their buddies died in vain, they missed out on so much in the family's lives in vain - hell, I don't want that either.

This is a serious breach of etiquette I realize but I honestly don't know what our best move is right now. I'd give anything for leaders I actually believed knew what the heck was going on and were capable of responding to it effectively while levelling with me. We don't have that. So, the best thing that can be done is to look for a way out, as I said before, that doesn't create a worse mess than we've already created.

Also, you need to reread the few recorded contacts Jesus and his immediate followers had with the Romans to understand a little better what their attitude was towards governmental conflict and authority. It seems you are remaking Jesus in your image instead of accepting the total package.

Wildfire:
"If i made as much sense as you my I.Q would be about hmmm hovering at around 50."
--You mean it isn't already?

"I make it a point not to debate with people who little to no logical sense or with morons who feel it necessary to stick up for other losers"
--Is it because you don't like the competition or because such people already agree with you?

"...but redneck by name and nature."
Indeed. And clearly, vastly superior to yourself.

You didn't take my earlier advice, did you? You have a lot to learn, son, and I suggest you start here

Autarkis:
"For example, the article you cite is about the Schiavo memo which later that very Senator's aid admitted to writing."
--Which would have been a stunning victory--if they had accused some obscure aid of writing the memo instead of claiming it to be a Republican plan.

"The article you cite dwells on semantics of what various Palestian terrorist or militant groups, take your pick it's all the same to me, are called by The Post."
--All the same to you, and to the Post. Those of us whose hatreds haven't permenently warped our view of reality, on the other hand, know that a) there is a vast difference between a terrorist and a military leader and b) people unable to see this difference are not credible sources.

"And the last is from a cite called "Oh, That Liberal Media." Yeah. Okay. Speaks for itself."
Because nobody can point the obvious unless they adopt that ridiculous "corporate media" pulp.

" The problem seems to be that he's citing sources this guy doesn't like"
--Mostly because they're not the ones relevant to the problem at hand. Kind of like the New York Times "man on the street" polls that somehow always end up asking someone slightly to the left of Che Guevera.

"I take everything I read or see with a grain of salt,"
--Unless it's from the Washington Post, apparently.

"Yes, and Reagan "sought" to build up a super-duper system of satellite laser guns to blow up ICBMs."
--And now we have one, that's worked in 5 out of 6 tests. Mayhap we could stick to the subject at hand?

"Attacking a country that had nothing to do with bin Ladin, aside from trying to infiltrate his group because Saddam saw them as a threat,"
--Except that a) we already know of several Iraq-Al-Qaeda links, and b) Houssein as an anti-terrorist crusader has to be one of the wackier conspiracy theories I've heard.

"We made bin Ladin's case for him like the rocket scientists we are."
By cutting and running in Somalia, or by not instituting shari'a law?

"Now if you don't want to believe the reports cited above in those articles that's up to you. Who wouldn't rather believe in unicorns, rainbows and pixie dust over the butt-ugly truth? "
You would, apparently, when your 'unicorns, rainbows, pixie dust' and other general warm-fuzzies tell you that America is evil and the butt-ugly truth is you were wrong.

"And if it's not the truth that we actually created a worse situation because of our invasion, prove it."
--To which I present exhibit A: The nation of Iraq. Free elections, mass graves beind dug up rather than filled up, plastic shredders being used to actually shred plastic, rape rooms shut down, all that good stuff.

If it's offensive, then I'm afraid I'm not at all sorry, but to claim that Iraq was better off under Houssein is stupid. It's plain and simply a dumb thing to say, and the only question such a statement should bring forward is whether the appropriate response is anger or amazed laughter.

"Saddam was a scumbag. Nobody sensible is going to argue that."
--Thanks for pointing that out. Now please continue telling us why he should have been left in office.

"But for your own sake, don't ask the former Prime Minister, and ex-CIA asset, Allawi what he thinks about our "progress." Not-a-gonna-likee the answer"
--Because of course the guy who lost his job out there is the premiere source of information on the subject. Just don't read the Washington Post headlines about Sen. Lieberman's statements about Iraq.

What your reports don't mention is that there were more labs found than the 11 containers they noted. Which isn't bias on their part, actually, since others were found after they made the report.
(And I guess a couple tons of enriched uranium doesn't count as WMD either, huh?) But I'm sure he was just trying to find a better way to ferment cheese, and hiding it from the UN so the French didn't require a few more bribes to not steal it.

"Neocons ain't going to be loving this very much but it's diplomacy time. We need to hammer out an understanding with Iran that's mutually beneficial or Iraq's screwed."
--We can either finish killing the terrorists, or we can go kiss the ayatollah's butt and pretend that he'd honor any bargain he made. Screw that noise.

" And nobody with a still functioning brainstem, much less both lobes in full bloom, thinks Iran will launch a serious attack on a nuclear power."
--See "9-11 Attacks"
See "American Embassies, Africa"
See "USS Cole"
See "Marine Barracks, Beirut"
See "Six-Day War"

" I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to cut VA benefits, oh, I'm sorry - limit the rate of spending artificially."
--Ahh, the beauties of baseline budgeting, where a smaller increase than you wanted is called a "cut"

Nate:
"When you are in a cult you miss a lot. Like reality. They didn't go to Baghdad because they were smart enough to see what we are now going through now would happen."
--Sounds to me like you don't miss it a bit.

"Even you folks in the cult of conservatism have to see that he totally BOTCHED the handling of this war and then showed he didn't have enough of a grasp of the situation or the confidence in himself to shit-can the bozos who planned it."
--Because taking over a nation quickern' the French can surrender and then holding it against terrorist attacks is the perfect sign of a botched war.

Big K--
"Honestly, I wish the administration had at least pointed them out more before the onset of hostilities."
--They did. Unfortunately, the "conservative corporate media" (that phrase is always good for a laugh) apparently forgot to reinforce that talking point for him. In fact, it's as if they buried it.

" 17 resolutions, and the UN was powerless to do any more than scoff at him."
--That's because a sizable percentage of the UN was on the take.

"It should make people angry also the UN is such a powerless institution now."
--Angry? Hell, I'm glad. The UN is and has for decades been a corrupt organization whose only purpose was to siphon US money to third-world dictatorships and give two-bit despots a pulpit to bash America from. And, of course, underage sex for peacekeepers.

"Let us also not forget that Saddam is not going to be winning any Nobel Peace Prizes for his treatment of his own people."
--To which I must remind you of Jimmy Carter's prize. The Nobel Peace Prize is given not for actual work toward peace, but for anti-American sentiment, which means Sodom's is probably in the mail.

Redneck:
”"For example, the article you cite is about the Schiavo memo which later that very Senator's aid admitted to writing."
--Which would have been a stunning victory--if they had accused some obscure aid of writing the memo instead of claiming it to be a Republican plan.””

Did the papers claim that, really? I don’t even see where the story you link to suggests that. It’s possible they talked to people who said that and they reported it. There’s a distinct difference here you’d be well served to meditate upon. The story you actually linked to, rather than the one you’re conveniently inventing, seems to be claiming it’s a Democratic forgery. Not so much.

”"The article you cite dwells on semantics of what various Palestian terrorist or militant groups, take your pick it's all the same to me, are called by The Post."
--All the same to you, and to the Post. Those of us whose hatreds haven't permenently warped our view of reality, on the other hand, know that a) there is a vast difference between a terrorist and a military leader and b) people unable to see this difference are not credible sources.””

Since when is a “militant” a military leader? Websters says a militant is “1. engaged in combat. 2. working for a cause.” Websters defines terrorist, via terrorism, as “1. the political use of violence or intimidation.” Seems to me many of these Palestinian outfits conform to both descriptions as have the Israelis from time to time. Frankly, if you see all angels or all devils on either side of this conflict you’re more likely possessed of a “warped view of reality” than someone with a realistic perspective.

Work on recognizing spin for spin and sorting out that mote in your own eye. It’s not easy, it requires humility and research, but it can be done. Alright, so maybe I’m not strong in the humility department myself but isn’t admitting I need work there a start?

”"And the last is from a cite called "Oh, That Liberal Media." Yeah. Okay. Speaks for itself."
Because nobody can point the obvious unless they adopt that ridiculous "corporate media" pulp. “

Is there a translator in the house?

”" The problem seems to be that he's citing sources this guy doesn't like"
--Mostly because they're not the ones relevant to the problem at hand. Kind of like the New York Times "man on the street" polls that somehow always end up asking someone slightly to the left of Che Guevera.””

How is the State Department’s response not relevant? He wasn’t belittling them for getting the story wrong, initially, but rather pointing out the facts the administration was now owning up to. That isn’t newsworthy how again? Are you saying State just makes crap up without consulting The Pentagon when they’re dealing with delicate public diplomacy that directly results from and impacts The Pentagon’s efforts in Iraq?

”I take everything I read or see with a grain of salt,"
--Unless it's from the Washington Post, apparently.”

This from the guy who thinks AIM is a fair arbiter of news criticism.

“And Reagan "sought" to build up a super-duper system of satellite laser guns to blow up ICBMs."
--And now we have one, that's worked in 5 out of 6 tests. Mayhap we could stick to the subject at hand?”

It’s an illustration there, Virginia. I know you can handle that concept. I hope neocons don’t take as long to fix Iraq as they did to fix Star Wars. Assuming your claim is accurate. Wonder what I’d find if you’d post small enough responses for me to actually research what you’re saying. I’m on to you. Tonnage and fatigue. And it’ll work eventually. Posting here is by far the least interesting thing I’m doing today.

”"Attacking a country that had nothing to do with bin Ladin, aside from trying to infiltrate his group because Saddam saw them as a threat,"
--Except that a) we already know of several Iraq-Al-Qaeda links, and b) Houssein as an anti-terrorist crusader has to be one of the wackier conspiracy theories I've heard.”

And those links would be? Think carefully because I already know where those skeletons are buried and I’ll riposte with factual rebuttles faster than you can type “Redneck.” Hussein (sic) was no anti-terrorist crusader but he was a secular neo-Stalinist with no patience for any rival dogmas that would challenge his claim to power. That included radical Islamism. And bin Ladin responded in kind. I can only think of one mention, that’s even remotely credible, of bin Ladin scoping out a possible alliance with Saddam and it was firmly rebuffed. However there are many references from bin Ladin slamming Hussein as a heretic to be destroyed.

”"We made bin Ladin's case for him like the rocket scientists we are."
By cutting and running in Somalia, or by not instituting shari'a law?”

No, by demonstrating to the Muslim world that we’d invade a country with no demonstrable ties to bin Ladin, but plenty of oil, and decide we were going to make it a government after our own style – heck we planned to privatize the oil and many other government services before contracting them out to American companies. Much of this has been stopped in its tracks by folks like al-Sistani but that was the plan going in. It was positively nutty hearing libertarian entrepreneur types going on about the piles of money they were going to make even before the invasion was over. Who’s laughing now? Aside from military contractors, Halliburton et al, I think that plan’s mostly screwed.

”"Now if you don't want to believe the reports cited above in those articles that's up to you. Who wouldn't rather believe in unicorns, rainbows and pixie dust over the butt-ugly truth? "
You would, apparently, when your 'unicorns, rainbows, pixie dust' and other general warm-fuzzies tell you that America is evil and the butt-ugly truth is you were wrong.”

America’s not evil. America’s not Satan, it’s Frankenstein. We’re big, ignorant and don’t know our own strength. Our heart’s in the right place and we’ve got courage aplenty but when a peasant shoves a torch in our face we tear up the entire village to make it stop.

”"And if it's not the truth that we actually created a worse situation because of our invasion, prove it."
--To which I present exhibit A: The nation of Iraq. Free elections, mass graves beind dug up rather than filled up, plastic shredders being used to actually shred plastic, rape rooms shut down, all that good stuff.”

Try again. New torture rooms staffed by Shiite militias? Elections we manipulated if not decisively enough to keep out the pro-Iranian parties at least effectively enough to keep them from getting a clear majority. A democracy where our military pays off the newspapers to plant stories? Hell, and I don’t even have time to dwell on Basra where the Shiite militias have so thoroughly infiltrated the police force they’re killing anyone who violates sharia law and less than a year ago got into a big shootout with British forces.

”If it's offensive, then I'm afraid I'm not at all sorry, but to claim that Iraq was better off under Houssein is stupid. It's plain and simply a dumb thing to say, and the only question such a statement should bring forward is whether the appropriate response is anger or amazed laughter.”

Tell that to former Prime Minister Allawi and not me. He certainly says that. It would be good to see a current poll. I think the last one taken did have a slim majority of Iraqis saying some contradictory things. One, they’d agree with you that the war and the aftermath was worth it to get rid of Saddam. Two, interestingly, they claim they’re worse off now than under Saddam. Three, they want us the hell out of Iraq. The only way I could make sense of these results is the pollsters talked mainly to the Shiite majority. They are happy Saddam is gone and now they’re just twiddling their thumbs until we leave and they can take over.

Some seem more worried than others about how quickly we should leave but giving us the boot is the overwhelming sentiment. Remember the parties that won the election had a plank stating they’d tell us to leave, which they conveniently forgot later on, and more recently you had the Arab League declaration in which Iraqi delegates voted that “resistance” was a legitimate right. Not exactly the flowers tossed at our feet Cheney was talking about before the war.

”"Saddam was a scumbag. Nobody sensible is going to argue that."
--Thanks for pointing that out. Now please continue telling us why he should have been left in office.”

Because, Einstein, you’re looking at the alternative.

”"But for your own sake, don't ask the former Prime Minister, and ex-CIA asset, Allawi what he thinks about our "progress." Not-a-gonna-likee the answer"
--Because of course the guy who lost his job out there is the premiere source of information on the subject. Just don't read the Washington Post headlines about Sen. Lieberman's statements about Iraq. “

And read the statements of guys like Russ Feingold who went over with him. Read about the meetings my state’s Republican Senator John Warner had to have with brigade level officers to figure out what the hell was really going on over there. Sure, he’s a loyal Republican cat but read between the lines. If he needs to talk to brigade level commanders to get the honest story then what trust does he have for The President and The Pentagon? Less than he’ll admit and precious little more than I have.
And sources in the meeting say it wasn’t pretty.

”What your reports don't mention is that there were more labs found than the 11 containers they noted. Which isn't bias on their part, actually, since others were found after they made the report.
(And I guess a couple tons of enriched uranium doesn't count as WMD either, huh?) But I'm sure he was just trying to find a better way to ferment cheese, and hiding it from the UN so the French didn't require a few more bribes to not steal it.”

That uranium was under UN seal until our own troops broke it open and let the locals run wild looting. Read your own article. You probably can do better than green reports from 2003 before reality set in. Those “mobile weapon labs” are nothing of the kind and never were. Hell, I could probably link to a story from 1077 AD, if they had an internet, and “prove” the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

”"Neocons ain't going to be loving this very much but it's diplomacy time. We need to hammer out an understanding with Iran that's mutually beneficial or Iraq's screwed."
--We can either finish killing the terrorists, or we can go kiss the ayatollah's butt and pretend that he'd honor any bargain he made. Screw that noise.”

Good luck with that, Rambo. So, I’m trying to visualize this, a guy with enough time to write responses like this and all this pent up testosterone? Does your mom like having all those sandbags and the camo netting in her basement?

”" And nobody with a still functioning brainstem, much less both lobes in full bloom, thinks Iran will launch a serious attack on a nuclear power."
--See "9-11 Attacks"
See "American Embassies, Africa"
See "USS Cole"
See "Marine Barracks, Beirut"
See "Six-Day War"”

You do know the difference between Sunni and Shiia? Or do all Muslims look the same to you? I’m not saying there aren’t radical elements in Iran that have funded attacks against the U.S., in fact, I think you missed the only documented one – Kohbar Towers in Saudi Arabia. However, there’s a difference between some fruitloops taking potshots, however pyrotechnic, and a real military effort actually capable of destroying Israel. The Six Day War didn’t involve Iran and it also occurred before we can even be certain Israel had nuclear weapons and certainly before this information was revealed by an Israeli researcher in the 1980s. If you don’t know about a deterrent it’s not going to really deter you much.

”"I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to cut VA benefits, oh, I'm sorry - limit the rate of spending artificially."
--Ahh, the beauties of baseline budgeting, where a smaller increase than you wanted is called a "cut"”

Tell it to the troops.

Alright. I don’t have time to spend on this anymore. Respond if you want but if you care to keep this discussion going, masochism is a perfectly understandable and common condition, just pick three of my grossest exaggerations, lies and misrepresentations to respond to and we’ll go from there.

Does it escape everyon's mind that we alreafy voted to pull the troops out of Iraq, within the last 2 weeks. The vote was overwhelmongly to stay. 4 voted for immediate pullout. The Dems want to throw bombs, call quagmires, let everyone believe we are losing, which just so happens to directly correlated to the time news started pouring in through the maintream. The Dems are done, no more bitching about Iraq, you had your chance to bring the troops home, which the spinelessly didn't vote for.

How has he mishandled this war? Everybody keeps saying that but i mean we destroyed an intire governmental infrastructure with half as many troops as the first time these people are getting freedom and humanitarium aid (lets not forget all the money sadaam stole from food for oil, he shat on a golden toilet for cryin out loud). It seems the party that looks out for the little guy and seeks to squelch every injustice in the world want to pick and choose when they want to defend civil liberties. Yea Bush isn't the smartes guy, but at least he didn't keel over, or do we forget 2 bombings of our embasies(which is considered US soil) an attack on our warship, the USS Cole; the withdraw of troops from mogadishu.

There is a lesson to be had here, we should be more cautious before going to war. This was a overwhelmingly supported invasion, whether you think Bush doctored intel or not the fact remains that we are still over there now, there is no high tailing, if we are the superpower we say we are, then let's do a good job. Lets set up a Democracy, get out, let them fuck it up so we never have to deal with those camel jockeys again.

Answer honestly: if we were able to erradicate all the muslims in the world, how much safer would it be and how many problems will we have? (i obviously don;t believe this is a viable solution but...

--Honestly, Desert Storm we should have finished the job. For the life of me I can not figure out why he did not do it.
___

When you are in a cult you miss a lot. Like reality. They didn't go to Baghdad because they were smart enough to see what we are now going through now would happen.

In short, Sun Myung Moon's favorite shill, Poppy knew only an idiot, a fool or both would take Baghdad.

If he was good at being a dry drunk war mongerer it would be one thing, but he is INEPT. Even you folks in the cult of conservatism have to see that he totally BOTCHED the handling of this war and then showed he didn't have enough of a grasp of the situation or the confidence in himself to shit-can the bozos who planned it.

"I never mix religion with politics, but for Christ’s sake, don’t they know that Jesus was a Democrat?"

Madame, you obviously know nothing of religion. This is one of the silliest statements made since John Kerry stated that he was reporting for duty.

The Democrats have staked their claim as the party of abortion, the party for removing prayer in state forums, the party for the prohibition of any religious symbol in public areas, and the institution of gay marriage. Additionally, the innovation of the "Great Society" has had profound links to the lack of family values in society. And finally, Ted Kennedy is a Democrat. How on earth can you possibly justify the inherent distinctions between the the current Democractic party and Jesus?

The answer is, you can't.

Jesus desired to spread freedom around the world. Interestingly enough, while the democrats have been known as the freedom party (which is ironic as Democrats were the party who tried to stifle the end of slavery), they have been the party attempting to stifle democracy in Iraq, simply to feed their political aspirations.

While your prose is that of a freelance writer, you are not released from the obligation to conduct the research necessary to produce a thoughtful article.

Freedom Fan: I misquoted Coulter, but not deliberately. I am sorry. She did not advocate the killing of all Muslims, just their terrorist leaders. Here's the infamous quote: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Just like the Crusades, killing in the name of Christ is anti-Christian. Many fanatical religious extremists have completely misunderstood God's love for all mankind. I can't believe we are even having this discussion; anyone who goes within (where the kingdom of heaven really is beneath the ego) knows the difference between intolerance (hatred) and acceptance (love).

Very few flamethrowing Dems? (ref. Comment #2). You obviously have not been to Daily Kos lately. Or heard anything from the lips of Howard Dean. Or read the newsletters of MoveOn.org. Or listened to the comments of Cindy Sheehan. Or Ted Kennedy. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Barbera Boxer. Or John Kerry. Or Al Gore. Or Al Franken. Or Chuckie Schumer. Or Air America. Or Code Pink. Or Jimmy Carter. Or the majority of hollywood. Or George Soros.

Hmm, where was Zarqawi? I can tell you were he was not. He was not being handed over to the proper authorities for crimes against humanity that he was already being sought for. When the international community knows there is a terrorist in your midst, it would be in your best interest to get rid of him, would it not? If that country thumbs their nose at the that it is called giving aid and comfort to the terrorist.

And the number of weapons that exceeded that range does not matter. Again, Saddam is pushing buttons he knows he can not push. Do you think he would have stopped at 12? There is a pattern of behavior here, not letting in inspectors, burying parts from weapons experiments for another day, and having missiles that just happened to go over the range they agreed not to have. Again, Saddam had been playing with fire for too long. And we let him under Bush Sr. and Clinton. I am glad he is gone, and I make no apologies for it.

You never addressed my point about the president not declaring the warheads as a sign of vindication. Yeah, there were only 2 found so far, but do you honestly think another politician would not have held that up in a press conference with some dramatic lighting and a choir for effect? Bush made mistakes, no one is denying that one. I agree with Redneck, we were not expecting mass surrenders by the Iraqi’s. Hell, 10 years prior they gave us something of a fight. What the hell happened to them? But at the same time if anyone thought declaring war on this country meant we will be done in time for tea was delusional. We have been there just over 2 years now. Very few conflicts are less than that. Extremely few have only 2100 casualties on one side. Our military has performed exceptionally. Now if we can keep people like Murtha and Kerry from loosing a war we already won we should do fine. And we did win. We just need to finish the job. But its not going fast enough you say. Germany took decades to rebuild. Japan too. You can still go to Europe and find bullet holes in buildings or live bombs from WW2 in some fields. It will take time, patience is necessary. I did mention this, but so did the president before we began over there. All the Bush lied people have been silent on that front. He did say it would not be a fast operation.

I will say this, you are the best opposition here. None of the rest of these guys have been able to produce anything other than repeating their lunacy preceding it with “ don’t you just KNOW?” as an argument. I have become more interested in this blog since you showed up.

Big K: Well, I have to confess I lurk here and there in the net and I saw you guys having a field day with these folks. Couldn't help myself but stepping up. Maybe it was reading about how Coulter's fanbase have treated Ms. Cornell that got my back up too. Like I said earlier, I'd have trouble defending her approach to the subject but I don't think she deserved the personal scourging she's gotten as a result of it. Which is unrelated to our discussion...

Look, I give this administration kudos for not planting evidence. My level of mistrust is so elevated right now that this alone seems like a shining moment for them. Every time I say something like that though the other shoe drops and you learn something that undermines even that little credibility. Now I've opened my mouth I half expect to see a story about how they tried and failed to plant evidence.

If that happens it will erase my trust in the administration as well. There, I am on the record for saying it. But, then again, what evidence is there to plant at this point?

As far as beating up on Ms. Cornell, it would help if she would do some research. I mean please, here she is calling people Nazi's and that is one of Coulter's favorite things to rip libs about. That they can not even come up with a better insult than that and every one of them uses it as if it were original.

She really pissed me off with calling conservatives non Christians. And no, I still have not let that one go yet because she said it again right after apologizing for it. M4 wants to say that, let him do it, he is not that bright anyway. (Assuming he is a he, I guess that has not been established here). But a professed Christian needs to know better. But I still do not think I ripped on her worse than that. Now, again I must go on record, anyone phyisicaly threatening her is wrong. And it is a criminal offense, so cut that crap out.

Big K:
Specifically, Japan had far more of its infrastructure intact, and the Japanese who hated us most became Kamikaze pilots or went to the front lines and died. In Iraq, the infrastructure's been torn down for Golden Crappers for Sodom, and the people who liked us most died, killed by his troops. And it took 5 years in Japan. We're making decidedly better progress than that, and considering Japan's position in the world today, that's a right good sign.

Autarkis:
"Did the papers claim that, really? I donï¿½t even see where the story you link to suggests that."
--That would be because the story I linked to wasn't the Washington Post story. Then again, the story I linked to said they did just that, so...

"Since when is a ï¿½militantï¿½ a military leader?"
--Seeing as they used the term "military leader"--as well as "military wing" and "military offensive", the question's more than a little irrelevant.

" Frankly, if you see all angels or all devils on either side of this conflict youï¿½re more likely possessed of a ï¿½warped view of realityï¿½ than someone with a realistic perspective."
--I can see their side of the conflict just fine. They want all the Jews dead. Meanwhile, I'm not accusing them of "seeing" the palestinian side of the conflict, I'm accusing them (accurately) of taking the palestinian's side in the conflict.

"How is the State Departmentï¿½s response not relevant?"
-Perhaps because when you do a report on the military you should, oh, I dunno, ask the military?

" I hope neocons donï¿½t take as long to fix Iraq as they did to fix Star Wars."
--Depends. Will Democrats whine and slander as much about Star Wars, and then forget all about it when it works?

"Wonder what Iï¿½d find if youï¿½d post small enough responses for me to actually research what youï¿½re saying. Iï¿½m on to you. Tonnage and fatigue."
--If you wouldn't try to feed me so much bullshit at one time, I could make shorter posts.

" Think carefully because I already know where those skeletons are buried and Iï¿½ll riposte with factual rebuttles faster than you can type ï¿½Redneck.ï¿½"
--Rebuttals, at least. Factual? Not likely.
A short list can be found here, but more detailed and cited sources include this, this, this, this report on the same memo, or

"Hussein (sic) was no anti-terrorist crusader but he was a secular neo-Stalinist with no patience for any rival dogmas that would challenge his claim to power."
--In case you don't remember, Stalin didn't think much of us. But he still managed an alliance in WWII. Come to think of it, he didn't think much of Hitler either, and they managed an alliance before that.

"No, by demonstrating to the Muslim world that weï¿½d invade a country with no demonstrable ties to bin Ladin, but plenty of oil,"
--Ah, war for oil. That's why now we have all the gas we want for pennies a gallon and... oops...

"Aside from military contractors, Halliburton et al, I think that planï¿½s mostly screwed."
--Except that Halliburton makes less money in Iraq than the rest of the business does--little enough that they're losing money over there. If Cheney got them that contract, they ought to sue him.

"Try again. New torture rooms staffed by Shiite militias? Elections we manipulated if not decisively enough to keep out the pro-Iranian parties at least effectively enough to keep them from getting a clear majority."
--And you have something resembling evidence of these claims? Naw, nevermind.

"That uranium was under UN seal until our own troops broke it open"
--Because Sodom obviously had so much respect for the UN. Were he still in power, then certainly that blue seal would have kept him away with its talismanic power.

" Those ï¿½mobile weapon labsï¿½ are nothing of the kind and never were."
--Because you claim they weren't?

"Good luck with that, Rambo. So, Iï¿½m trying to visualize this, a guy with enough time to write responses like this and all this pent up testosterone?"
--Sorry, no more .270 ammo 'til payday.

"Does your mom like having all those sandbags and the camo netting in her basement?"
--Ma doesn't know I'm hiding that stuff there yet, and I hope she don't find the C-4 and AR-15's. What does your sanitarium think of the Soviet flag on your wall?

" Iï¿½m not saying there arenï¿½t radical elements in Iran that have funded attacks against the U.S., in fact, I think you missed the only documented one ï¿½ Kohbar Towers in Saudi Arabia. However, thereï¿½s a difference between some fruitloops taking potshots, however pyrotechnic, and a real military effort actually capable of destroying Israel."
Oh--well, if they're only going to be bombing some buildings and murdering our women and children, I guess it's OK. I thought you meant they were going to get aggressive.

"The Six Day War didnï¿½t involve Iran"
So all these other countries would, but Iran wouldn't. Good to hear.

"and it also occurred before we can even be certain Israel had nuclear weapons and certainly before this information was revealed by an Israeli researcher in the 1980s."
--Because nobody suspected a thing. Even the people who hate Israel would never assume they'd have a nuke.

"Tell it to the troops."
--They know. That's why they voted Bush.

"Alright. I donï¿½t have time to spend on this anymore."
--What a coincidence, neither do I. Especially after I saw the links and realized I'm frequenting the blog of a guy who writes for Democratic Underground. How much more contemptible can one get? Time to put my energies towards more worthwhile pursuits. I'm done here.

I'm not religious so I've already dipped a toe in as far as I dare into that part of the discussion. And I think Ms. Cornell was trying to be ironic by doing exactly as she perceives her opposite numbers are doing - displaying ostentatious hypocrisy. Frankin, whether you like him or not and I'm guessing not, uses this technique to pretty good effect. But his tongue is so firmly in cheek that it looks like a misplaced Quasimodo's hump. It's not an easy device to pull off and very easily misinterpreted.

As for planting evidence, like most revelations about Iraq, if such a story were to come out it would be something that happened a couple years ago. I don't have any evidence of this or even a hunch. It just seems that when I say something that gets me in trouble with my more liberal friends like, "Hey, the election worked!", there's a lag of a couple months before the stories about the Administration's attempts to meddle with the results come out. Like clockwork. I say something hopeful, "Hey, Sunnis stood up to al-Qaida in this one village, maybe things are looking up?" And boom, stories about how the Shiite militias we're trying to clean up and pass off as the Iraqi Army are terrorizing Sunnis.

Trust me, seems like if all I say are critical things maybe this will all somehow work out better? Nah. We're screwed no matter what. Sorry but that's how it looks to me.

Redneck: First off, you colored outside the lines. You were to pick three topics, of your choice, so's you at least have a chance - I'm a sporting guy, but that was too difficult to understand? You're dismissed.

Second off, I don't know what links you're talking about and I don't even know what the Democratic Underground is. I'm assuming a blog site?

Third off, don't waste my time with Douglas Feith. His OSP is all lawyered up and in hiding from the Senate Intelligence Phase II investigation.

Big K: I haven't read your link yet, I'm trying to get past the URL - and frankly if you can buckle up your shorts and venture into radical, far out, territory like The Washington Post I'll try to suspend disbelief long enough to stomach a voyage into the dark heart of neoconservative nuttiness. But this isn't a fair trade. You owe me one. No, a bunch.

Look, The Project For The New American Century is the very think-tank that spawned our foreign policy. The neocons all but ran the show. Every person quoted or mentioned for substantiation is either a neoconservative themselves or an "unnamed" government official who could well be a drinking buddy of the neocons at The Project. This isn't a source I consider trustworthy. You might. If you do, and we could have a nice long chat about that, then we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

But when I think of the misrepresentations and motivations that dragged us into Iraq - the hands of The Project are what I see closing around our necks.

Actually I am not familiar with them. I looked around the site for a while for obvious weirdness such ads that depict beautifull women with guns. (personally I have no problem with this, but you do have to watch the information you get from them). I thought the peice would grab your attention because all of the citations are from the State Dept. and your favorite, the Washington Post.

And of course, I have been reading your posts, and your links. I even learned something about those mobile labs. I did find what Redneck was talking about. Some more of them were found after the first batch was determined not to be what they thought. The same people were going to investigate the other ones. They were found with a huge amount of munitions and some other interesting things. Then, they are simply not mentioned again in the news. I would be interested in hearing more about it, I just have not found anything yet. A brother has to make a living and stuff. And finals are next week. Making this a bad use of my time anyway, but I did say I have been enjoying it lately.

Redneck, Japan had sustained bombing, not as much as Europe, but extensive stuff (and I am talking about conventional stuff. Big Boy and Little Boy not withstanding). When I was there a few years ago I was able to see some of the damage that still exists. That is what prompted me to add that. But maybe not the best example. We can insert the Phillipines instead.

Interesting, isn't it, that a little stiff opposition seperates the civil from the incivil. It's likely we'll find a great deal to disagree about from this point out, assuming either of us cares to stick around, but who knows what we might learn?

You might want to look into The Project For A New American Century, Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, neoconservatives, Office of Special Plans, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Team B (Ford administration) and make up your own mind.

There's quite a history here and it certainly informs the present. The Project isn't a nutty fringe group in the sense you'd look at the website and know right away to start scanning for viruses. They're well funded, long established and respectable in Washington circles. But they do have a track record of distorting intelligence, conflating the interests of Israel and the U.S. (not necessarily a malicious thing in my mind but not always in our best interests) and a fascination with using American military might to impose our will on the world.

Freedom Fan: I misquoted Coulter, but not deliberately. I am sorry. She did not advocate the killing of all Muslims, just their terrorist leaders. Here's the infamous quote: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Just like the Crusades, killing in the name of Christ is anti-Christian. Many fanatical religious extremists have completely misunderstood God's love for all mankind. I can't believe we are even having this discussion; anyone who goes within (where the kingdom of heaven really is beneath the ego) knows the difference between intolerance (hatred) and acceptance (love).

-Lydia Cornell, COMMENT #216

Thank you Ms. Cornell. Perhaps you are an honorable person after all. However, it appears that you are still twisting Ann’s words. Furthermore it is ludicrous to suggest “that Jesus was a Democrat…In fact, a bleeding heart liberal…” Imagine the vitriol from Randi Rhoades on Air America radio if that doofus Pat Robertson had proclaimed that “Republicans were the party of Jesus.” Like most Liberals, you have a paranoia of the so-called “religious right” and a fundamental misunderstanding of mainstream Conservative values.

Nowhere did Ann advocate “killing in the name of Christ”. I do not pretend to know where Christ would stand on the issue of national defense, but the Old Testament is replete with stories about God supporting armies of the righteous against the forces of evil. So I can not comprehend how it would have been the moral choice to pose piously like a coward, while permitting Hitler’s factories of death to exterminate helpless men, women, and children by the millions during WWII. In the modern world, Saddam Hussein was an order of magnitude more dangerous than Hitler. Saddam had similar homicidal megalomaniacal plans, he was determined to conquer all of the Middle East, rule a united Arab Nation, control 73% of the world’s known petroleum resources, develop a thermonuclear arsenal, and drive the Jews of Israel into the sea. This is what Conservatives dare to deem a threat to our national security, and constitutes abundant cause for war in my humble opinion.

Incidentally Crusaders were not saints, but without their contribution, instead of a being Christian today, you would probably be a Muslima living under a hot burkha--a subhuman sexual possession of some ancient bearded bastard—groveling in squalor and mooning heaven five times a day. At the time of the Crusades, Islam was being spread by the sword throughout the cradle of civilization, Egypt and the Middle East, northern Africa, and well into Europe. Christendom was teetering on the brink of extinction until the Muslim invaders were defeated during their siege of Vienna, Austria in 1683.

So if your idea of being a good Christian means “War is Never the Answer”, like all the Liberal signs littering Berkeley, then count me out. Certainly, Christ is all about love and tolerance and “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you”. But I doubt that his philosophy demands that I must allow some vicious sociopath to harm my child unless he fights his way past every fiber of my being. Conservatives do not shrink from defending the innocent, standing up for liberty, and honoring those who gave the ultimate sacrifice as patriots—all foreign concepts to Liberals—hence the reason why “you can’t believe we are even having this discussion”.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

I posted a blog last night on another thread about Strauss-ian theories and the links to neo-conservative policy makers.

Watching a great two part documentary here in Australia about the impact Strauss has had on Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in particular and on the founding philosopher Sayed Kotb in relation to the roots of Al Quaeda. Not sure if you've heard of the program but I will remember to write down the title tonight.

Please post some links as I would like to learn more about this topic as it's very insightful as to how certain policies were implemented/determined many, many years ago in relation to the middle east invasion plan.

That and the fact it's kinda funny seeing Rumsfeld footage from 1975.... lol

I'm really no expert on Straussianism. Just learned what I picked up debating others. As an independant I tend to get in fights, and admittedly pick them at times, with everyone on both sides of the aisle. Over time, like a snowball rolling downhill, you just start accumulating something that approximates a defensible truth.

The documentary you're talking about is from the BBC, "The Power of Nightmare", and while it's more than controversial over here it's very, very, useful in fitting together that one aspect of how we got into this fine mess. At times it misses the mark, American politics is are quite bit more complex than one shadowy group manipulating others to do its whim, but taken as a single facet of history the documentary does a remarkably admirable job in a very entertaining way.

Hmm, I was debating Autarkis with such fervor that I neglected to notice Ms. Cornell posted again. Thanks Freedom Fan, for bringing that to my attention.

I will of course have to disagree with Ms. Cornell, but with Freedom Fan only half way.

I do not know what flavor of Christianity you adhere to Ms. Cornell, but seeing as almost all of them have killed in the name of Christ at some point I would be surprised if somehow your brand did not at some time. Except the protestants did it for even less of a reason in my book, mainly political power. They were tired of Rome dictating what they should do, so "baptism by the sword," or fire, or rack, or you name it became the order of the day with Calvinists and Lutherans throughout Europe for a time.

Freedom Fan is right though. Islam was spreading, and not in a way that played well with others. The Prophet Mohammed was a war general, and many times a successful one. That religion of peace took over Spain and held it for 600 years. The island of Sicily became a base to launch sorties against Rome itself. Some historians argue that while the popes of the time were busy worrying about the threat from the Middle East they did not pay attention enough at home, and that gave rise to the Reformation.

Next thing you know you have Puritans and Unitarians. Two opposite ends of a very weird spectrum. But the point is, the Crusaders were trying to get back land lost to an army that had invaded it before, and was threatening to overrun the rest of the West at the time.

I may not know that much about religion but history, that's something I can hold forth on a bit.

If you delve a bit deeper, past the generalities, you'll see that individuals making decisions based as much on economic or psychological reasons, played more of a historical role during the Crusader era than any real understanding of faith. Not to diminish faith, mind you, as everyone believed in something universally in those days but if everyone believes the same things the devil, the interpretation of theology, is in the details.

Look at Sicily, for example. It was long a Muslim holding, the Muslims stopped expanding into Western Europe after that little dustup with Charlemagne around 800 AD. Both sides practiced piracy and raiding on each other and themselves in the Mediterranean throughout the middle ages. Both sides sold slaves captured in battle. The Genoans, when not engaged in trade, were quite famous corsairs and several freebooters colonized a couple islets off of Sicily themselves for just that purpose.

But there was also trade and the mingling of cultures, in Sicily, after a rather brutal reconquest sponsored by The Papacy. The mercenary Norman overlords were granted title and then imported Byzantine Greek beaurocrats along with Jewish officials and Muslims themselves conducted affairs in the halls of power. Alone among the monarchs of Christiandom, Roger of Sicily, was considered a peer of the caliphs of North Africa because he was the only one they deemed sufficiently cultured.

Fredrick II was raised in Sicily shortly after this period and was later to be considered one of the most modern rulers in Europe. His interest in science was piqued by the rich intellectual and cultural life of his homeland.

Both sides displayed viciousness and greed. An unfortunate part of the human condition. But individuals like Roger or Saladin could, and did, make compromises or perpetrate acts of mercy and generousity.

As I was reading Wildfires comments, I could picture a modern Moliere play with wildfire as Tartuffe.
I wish never in my life to meet such a hypocrite,
As KL said marrige between a man and woman is sacred, everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you have problems with yourself being a queer I suggest to spend your time in counseling rather then slandering things that you have not the capacity to understand like the love between a family with a mother and father. I'm sorry you've missed out on that.

WildFire,
My point, which was obvious to the rest of the world except you, was that Lydia is self-promoting when she doesn't have anything to promote. She hasn't done anything! Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has. You may dislike the things she's done, but that's irrelevant. Also irrelevant is your straw-man (or, in liberal-speak, "straw-person") argument that I have done "nothing" and therefore should shut up about Lydia. Well, if you're going to go by that standard, than why don't you tell Lydia to shut up as well, because she has done nothing either?

{ed note: Inaccurate, unsubstantiated attack deleted along with COPY and PASTE from Coulter's book, except for the following...}

LYDIA, TAKE NOTE OF THIS LAST PARAGRAPH:

"Liberals are not only incapable of explaining a conservative position, they censor conservative views from their media. Instead of arguing substantive issues, liberals prefer to drone on and on about the larger cosmic meaning of Bush saying "subliminable." It's as if they believe allowing an articulate statement of the conservative position to escape into the world will put a religious hex on them. Until you can intelligently articulate the other side's position, you are not an adult. You are a liberal."

{ed note: Left in the above to point out that KenKong's hypocrisy in that he is welcome to post here --- as long as he/she avoids abusive, misleading, and repeated personal attacks --- which is more than can be said for Coulter's site where Comments are not welcomed at all...Mention that to your hero next time you're kissing up to her.}

And what important points does your last post make? That you are really good at cutting and pasting? If you took the time to read the passage that you shared with us and attempted to fully comprehend it, you would realize that you just violated the very thing that Ms. Coulter was lambasting in her churlish, contradictory, and insulting manner.

Ken Kong: I'm glad you pointed out that Coulter's book Treason is fiction. Here's the paragraph you wrote:

Treason, if you've read it, is an amazingly informative and substantive novel. (You called it a "novel"!) Coulter reveals the facts about Joe McCarthy, which is, in my opinion, the most important thing she has ever done.

Are you Coulter's demon lover? You are making it weirdly personal your hatred and attacks against Cornell --- as if you're jealous or something. If you're not Coulter's lover, what is your agenda? Why do you defend a person like this? She was just called THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD on MSNBC for what she did last week so the psychopaths could come out and attack Cornell. If Coulter's fans are like you, then I know I'm on the right side.

First of all... I'm a woman and married. Interesting to note you assumed I was gay though, why is that?

Do you think that only gay or lesbians have an pro-marriage opinion?

I agree, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's the beauty of this blog, I have yet to see any republican, neo-con argument censored or removed.

You have failed to show me what language or argument proves that I am a hypocrite though, where have I made an illogical argument? Just because you may believe the bible is the most important thing to live your life by, it is not my view or many others.

My gripe is with people using the bible to fuel hatred for homosexual rights. The classic 'Adam and Eve' and 'Adam and Steve' shows how little thought goes into an argument against gay marriage. Give me a good reason why you don't believe in it? Can you provide me any unequivocal factual evidence to state that gay parents are less capable of parenting?? And note, I mean independent evidence not evangelical preachings.

As for stating there is such a thing in these times as a proper or correct family unit, it was not that long ago people looked down upon divorce as a bad, thing. Family units are made up of many different sitations and I personally think to typify only the male-female + children as the only one God would approve of as being very arrogant and intolerant of the way modern society actually is.

But please, yet again show me how many more assumptions you can make about me.

Sorry I have been incognito all day. I stayed up too late working on a paper for school and have been dead on my feet. (btw, if anyone has any useful insight on Markov Chains, it would be greatly appreciated. Homophobe that I supposedly am, I would kiss you for it.)

Anyway, Autarkis, have you read that article yet? I know you don’t like those guys, but a wise individual once said “You don't have to like it but if you can't refute it don't waste bandwidth.”

Again, satire ladies and gentlemen. Tongue in cheek. Seriously, the guys may be nuts, but even nuts can get it right once in a while. Just curious about it.

And lastly, my whole point was that the Crusades were not necessarily the worst things that ever happened in history, and the Muslims were not the angels so often portrayed in the movies or even the text books. There were exceptions, some great men came out of that era, you are correct there. And monumental acts of mercy, like letting the defeated Christians leave in peace, knowing they would be fighting those same people again later (which is exactly what happened). Interesting stuff.

I can not speak for Sev, but I can give one reason why I personaly do not support gay marriage. Simply our country has defined the union to be what it has been for so long that any attempt to change that for the sake of just doing it is wrong. Case in point. Polygamy is not marriage in this country. Simple fact, we crack down on that pretty hard. And let us for a moment take what would be considered an ideal situation. All consenting legal adults, no children getting married. Would you support that? One man, 6 women in that kind of a relationship. You may, but I do not. I believe I have to play fair on that one.

"I misquoted Coulter, but not deliberately. I am sorry. She did not advocate the killing of all Muslims, just their terrorist leaders. Here's the infamous quote: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Just like the Crusades, killing in the name of Christ is anti-Christian. Many fanatical religious extremists have completely misunderstood God's love for all mankind. I can't believe we are even having this discussion; anyone who goes within (where the kingdom of heaven really is beneath the ego) knows the difference between intolerance (hatred) and acceptance (love)." - Lydia Cornell

Lydia, Her quote - in addition to your being wrong about the "all Muslims part" - does not substaniate your argument of Christian endorsed killing. In order for your argument to be valid, the accusation toward Coulter would have to be accurate.

First let's read the entire column. The previous paragraph of that column ["This is War" - September 13, 2001] described how airports were stupidly assuming that all people were potential crazed homocidal maniacs and how we were all suffering the consequences of the actions of Muslim fanatics by having to endure their annoying airport harrassment. Her quote was as follows:

"We know who the homicidal maniacs are, they are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade THEIR countries, kill THEIR leaders, and convert THEM to Christianity".

"We should kill their leaders" (in reference to the ones "cheering and dancing" celebrating 3,000 Americans being slaughtered) WHY NOT!? If we don't, their leaders and their stupid ideology will lead to the same thing (and let's not forget that we also endured 20 years of previous relentless attacks on American interests overseas before that, due to the same leaders - why can't liberals understand - THEY DON'T WANT to give peace a chance with us!?) What other options do we have?

"We should convert them to Christianity". This is the only part that uses the word "Christianity". The only people she is advocating killing are the leaders - NOT the nuts that were cheering and dancing (though doing so would not make me cry)! They are the ones that need to be converted. She said on the Today Show to Katie Couric that "I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels - perhaps that's the Peace Corp, perhaps that's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effects of anything like Christianity".

That, to me, puts Christianity in a good light. It says that there is no other way to teach people that killing and slaughtering are not acts of religion (that is what THEY believe - not Ann Coulter). She's saying that the transforming effects of Christianity are of the most powerful in promoting peace and love.

Last, but not least.

In response to the question.."And you say you'd rather not talk to liberals at all?" she said: "I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days". Any reasonable person - would see this statement as a metaphor for the old "gotta him 'em over the head with it" phraseology that basically implies that liberals need simple thoughts pounded into their heads. Does this mean that Ann promotes beating people with actual baseball bats? I don't know, but something tells me you will continue to hold onto that thought to have basis for writing your book. Her phraseology however is correct - nowadays there is no "talking" to liberals. You have to scream as loud as they are.

Incidentally - tonight on "Hannity & Colmes" she was talking about her speech at University of Connecticut. The liberal college students had the usual display of "Ann Coulter is Hitler" signs. When it came time for the speech, she was unable to give it as they kept screaming and blaring boom boxes. She went right to Q&A to cut them short.

Her ideas in the speech though: "The world is better with Saddam out of power", "Partial birth abortion is bad"....are indeed the "hate" they are opposing. So what is love? Full acceptance of partial birth abortion? Wanting Saddam back in power?

With Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi sending messages of encouragement to the insurgents and messages of defeat to our troops - it is not surprising to me that liberals, as a general matter, are throwing out these hysterical accusations.

As with Frist, DeLay, and Rove - the accusations against Coulter are indeed hysterical. What we need is proof of something. She never advocated the slaughtering of anyone who would not slaughter us first - nor has she even beaten anyone with a baseball bat.

Though we are on different sides and we've all taken fun shots at eachother, it's a shame that all of this energy cannot be spent uniting to ensure that our troops fulfill their mission and come home safely.

Morale is so important. You yourself said that the encouragment received from people in this small issue in and of itself has been incredibly uplifting. Can you imagine being denied that same encouragement and support as you were fighting a war overseas by hearing the top Senate Democrats declare you a "sure loser"?

Wildfire...just got to see ac on faux running off the stage at a university somewhere...dodging pies being thrown at her. She is melting down. Couldn't stop her lips from quivering. Didn't get to finish her speech because a student was playing a boom box too loud. I have never watched her, nor would I, just channel surfing. Was doing an interview with sean....now I see what you all are talking about...adams apple and all. M4

I too agree that change when it is not fundamentally needed is usually time and money wasted.

I also don't agree with polygamy... but my post was not discussing multiple-marriages.

As to why I think marriage should encompass all long term relationships be that between m/f, f/f, m/m I'll give you one very good reason. The marriage act enables people more than any other legislation to enable certain right to the spouse/partner when one partner is injured/deceased.

Too many times gay people are left broke or fighting other relatives of their deceased partner because they do not have the same legal rights to superannuation or to the estate as such. Many people do not realise the impact having a marriage certificate has in legal terms, not just spiritual or psychological. It covers aspects of healthcare decisions, wrongful death or insurance claims, employment benefit claims and the like.

I have yet to say how gay marriage adversely impacts on the straight majority of people. It doesn't restrict the way I live nor take away any of the rights I already have. I've also read the opinions of people who state that to amend the marriage act would tear the fabric of marriage or families apart. How so? Will it somehow make straight people being straight or marrying? Last time I checked gay and lesbian groups have never advocated diminishing anyone else's rights.

I give more of a damn when my rights are taken away with the notion of 'terrorism laws', or the way that governments of this day rule by the notion of fear - dispute this, look at Strauss philosophies and how it's effected the way some in the current administration apply their policies.

By the way merifour - have had a chance to read your posts - I totally agree with where you're coming from, in a spiritual sense and socially. It really seems more people are interested in debating trivial words or religious texts than actually being spiritual. Talking is far, far easier than being or doing. I'm in agreeance that just because we may not be christians in the religious sense of the word (i'm more aligned to a pagan doctrine than anything else) does not mean we do not have knowledge about christianity or the bible.

If that were the case, I'm not sure many westerners have any right to enter any discussion about islam then. Yet it seems, a lot of bloggers presume to know everything about religious righteousness simply because they are familiar with the bible. There is more than one world view out there of religion, perhaps look into others before forming too rigid a view. Besides, most modern religions have borrowed parts of older 'pagan' religions anyway.

Big K - On the issue of homosexual marriage, I think the problem with the discussion on it is that it does tend to lead to "but do you approve of X" discussions. (Though I appreciate that you kept it sensibly a question of what consenting adults do with each other rather than making a slippery slope argument.)

The reason that I would support homosexual marriage is that I don't see any particular legal reason to forbid it. I completely understand that there are many people who feel moral imperatives or, within reason, worries about what must be allowed if we move from the traditional definitions which we've used for years. I tend to be extremist in this regard, actually; I'd advocate civil unions in all cases - a man and a woman, two women, or two men, to establish the difference between the religious act of marriage and the legal rammifications of that same sort of union. Unfortunately, that would be just as unpopular, and lead to debate about taking "marriage" away from straight people from a sense of overly PCness.

If anyone feels that homosexuality is morally wrong and that the government shouldn't conscience it, I find that a completely valid and worthy point. I just happen to disagree with it, and see it as a matter of marriage as a civil right, to which everyone is entitled equally under the law. Understandably, not according to sexual preference, as that qualification is not in there, and one admits, would likely not have been there in spirit. But nontheless.

Merifour --- It seems we have something in common: I have long been a student of Metaphysics and to me this is the answer to everything. Viktor Frankl rose above concentration camp torture by putting his thoughts on love. What you focus on, grows. Withdraw your attention from evil and it quiety expires from neglect. Christ was the Master Metaphysician...but people here are too focused on flesh, body parts and sexuality to see it yet. That's okay though. When we raise our consciousness we can transcend fear (and other fatal illusions.)

Freedom Fan --- I am talking about higher thought. Of course I have to speak out against what I know is wrong, that's why I'm speaking out. In fact, I quote Edmund Burke's famous line in my book. I also love Einstein's statement that is is up to people with a conscience to speak out against injustice and evil, even in their own government. But my higher self knows more (when I choose to tune into it): Prayer is not "nothing". Prayer is more powerful than any force in the universe. I have had countless miracles through prayer (not only in my own life with my own demons, my "enemies" whom I turned the other cheek to and who are now my friends --- and also with my children and my stepson's genetic bone defect. But I am talking about a higher level of thought: Since God is love, prayer is focusing on the good so overwhelmingly that the "evil" which has no real power anyway (except the power we give it with our thoughts (Love casts out fear, remember) is extinguished by not resisting it. (Christ said: Resist NOT evil.) Fear & evil is an illusion anyway --- brought forth by our empowering it with our thought. I attract what I fear. The more I obsess over a problem, the more I bring it into my life. The less I diet, the more weight I lose. The less I nag my husband, the more agreeable he is. We give our enemies life, we empower them, validate them, embody them by fighting them. "The more you sweat in Peace, the less you bleed in war." When I expect the best in people and see the good in them, the good is all I see. (They rise to the occasion.)

Paul said (as the Christ truth, which is in all of us) "Whatever is true..noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable..think about such things (and you will bring them into your life in proportion to your thoughts --- this is a paraphrase from the most profound book I've ever read on Christ's teaching: Emmet Fox, "The Sermon on the Mount") I love reading Wayne Dyer, Mary Baker Eddy, Emmet Fox - but mainly just Christ's words in the four gospels; they say it all.

Shakespeare: "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

These concepts cannot be grasped unless you are seeking with an open mind. God Bless you and God Bless our troops.

** By the way, again, I am a comedienne and my article was part of a comedy bit expressing my bewilderment and frustration. I never thought it would stir up so much trouble, but thank God most of letters I've gotten are profoundly supportive from Christians who are Democrats, the invisible voices out there. Much of it is supposed to be funny, but I guess you have to hear it out loud. When I say, "I never mix religion with politics, but for Christ's sake don't they know that Jesus was a Democrat..." people usually laugh out loud: that is me making fun of myself for saying I never mix religion with politics! And the line "Death is sexier than sex" refers to the idea that "hate sells" --- calm moderate dialogue seems to be boring in this violent age. Coulter is a shock jock; the problem is, she sways a lot of young minds to hate an entire category of people!

And to Big K and Redneck --- I have never heard such hateful rhetoric as you both are engaged in. There is not one thing either of you have said that has anything to do with Christ --- his actual words. If you are both full of so much hatred for me and your fellow man, please go back and read only his words: the four gospels are all you have to ever read to understand what Christ came to tell us. He told us to love one another and to clean up our own side of the street. What another poor soul does if he's not hurting you, is not yours to judge. Leave vengeance and judgement to God. And we are supposed to love our enemies, bless those who persecute us... do you think he was just kidding?

And I know that's very judgmental of me to say that! And to Big K and Redneck (and Ken Kong --- who is obviously really Ann Coulter) of course I'm using hyperbole when I say I've never heard more hateful rhetoric than yours. I'm just exaggerating for effect, because I feel you are not very open-hearted. And I can be an idiot sometimes and obnoxiously righteous sometimes --- but I do know that intolerance is hatred, thinly disguised as "moral superiority". Militant Christians are turning others off to Christianity --- the most beautiful, peaceful and wondrous idea that ever came to man. The Old Testament is superceded for the New. It is no longer "an eye for an eye". And we are all supposed to act as Christ did, including doing the healings he did. Why aren't we?

I kinda get the feeling that nobody here is going to agree on a single thing said unless it's of a shared ideology, so why don't we all just sit back and accept that fact that other people have other views, and there's really nothing we can do about that? There are mudslingers and firey exactors of topical vengeance on all sides of the wide, grand political spectrum, and there always will be, and ignoring the fact that human nature is diverse across all boards seems insulting not only to people of other political persuasions, but to your own, as well. Refusal to acknowledge the flaws that exist within structured political worldviews-- liberal and conservative in this discussion, I suppose --is the highest form of ignorance, if what you are truly craving is an effective and working approach to publicizing and integrating your views into society as a whole. Honestly, there's been so much cruelty and intolerance on this page from all sides of the political spectrum, it's remarkable anybody keeps these discussions going. Such cruelty, such generalizations-- nobody tries to see eye-to-eye anymore, tries to see what things we have in common-- what /we,/ these people who don't work with these media outlets and are subject to everything that they feed us, liberal or conservative alike, can really agree on. Because until we start agreeing on what we'd commonly like to see in the world, we will continue to mudsling and be belligerent and cruel to one another and dig ourselves down to nowhere. Nobody's a 'jackass,' nobody's a 'douchebag'-- everyone is just acting out of what they experience the world as.

Alas, here's me being a hypocrite.

People who advocate 'love' seem to see this as an excuse for (or path to) inaction, which, as I would believe, it is not. To love unconditionally is to embrace unequivocally, yes, but if abuse is allowed to continue, then even the abuser is abused. Would it be in the best interests of humankind to keep Saddam in power because removing him would be a-- and I'm scouring for a word here --'militant' conclusion, and therefore undermine the ethics of peace we are trying to establish? Perhaps. But also consider this view, if you would: perhaps humankind is not yet at a state in its evolution where the complete dismantling of its armed forces would be in our best interests. In a world that sees cruel monarchs, dictators, and presidents remaining in power at the objections of their people-- and dictators actively engaged in the repression of their people --then perhaps the most loving conclusion, within the constructs of the reality we are currently experiencing, would be to remove this dictator.

Love is not passive, love is active-- love seeks a solution to a problem through the means of communication in which a problem may be solved, and if force is the only means of communication in which the other subject will respond, then force it must be. We must prioritize what is more important in our lives: the declaration of 'absolute peacefulness,' or the understanding that, in order to be 'absolutely peaceful,' we must sometimes be 'willingly forceful.'

Otherwise? Be the change you want to see in the world. Don't mudsling or be cruel unless you want to see the world around you becoming crueler and more malignant with every passing year. If it is peace you crave, be peaceful. If it is compassion you seek, be compassionate. And if it is agreement with all you say you want, then, well, be agreeable. It works. Really.

Oh - and in case you take everything so literally there is no spirit left (remember Christ said the Pharisees were so concerned with the letter of the law, not the spirit): of course I don't mean while here in this society, we should not catch and convict murderers who hurt others, or put people in jail who break laws.

My favorite line in a movie is from WALK THE LINE. It goes something like this: When Johnny Cash gets the idea to sing at Folsom Prison and the record company says to him, "Your fans are church-going folks, they won't like it if you perform for prisoners." And Johnny Cash says, "Well then they aren't Christians, are they?"

What a thoughtful, deep post. I agree with the concept of sending out what you want to get in return.

It is immensely hard to make the world you live in a better, more positive caring place if the only mindset you create is to be hostile to people, to belittle them and to ensure your view is always 'right' at the cost of everything else.

And yes the notion that to create more 'love' and positivity in the world sometimes requires harsh action is strange but true....

Anyway, hope to read more of your posts. Good to have non-confrontational free speech in here.

Lydia - you strike me as a woman who lives spiritually rather than just talking about it. I'm sure people with an open mind and heart interpret what you're saying with respect and intelligence. I agree that extremists of any group or religion spoil it for others.

I never embraced the Christian faith personally as I felt that the examples of christians here were more about intolerance and not living spiritually. As many people state it's very easy to preach, it's easy to talk about Jesus or Mohammad and talk about being a good spiritual person. The test is how you treat everyone around you in society, even the people you morally or logically object to the most.

I have a big collection on spirituality and angels and one of my favourite ways of looking at life is the aspect of 'ask yourself if your actions are for the highest good for you and the people around you. If they are not, then perhaps you should rexamine why they are not.'

Big K: I did read that article at the time. Asking me to have any faith in the authors and their motives would probably be like asking you to believe a Syrian Baathist website's story which quoted Syrian Baathist government officials and Syrian Baathist journalists. That's precisely how distorted and influential I believe The Project has proven to be. I really can't stress my skepticism enough.

But out of respect, I'll go into a little more detail. Firstly they don't discuss the Kerry article at all except to assume you've read it. That's a dead giveaway. No context. Next, they assume without offering any proof that just because Zarqawi was, according to a single unnamed official, in Baghdad he was working with Saddam. That would be just like saying that because The Mafia operates out of New York the mayor's in cahoots with them. Even assuming this is true we're talking about a factoid, and a stale one, in vacuum. The story I linked to places Zarqawi in Northern Iraq not Baghdad and I have to say I trust NBC more than The Project.

The rest of the article goes on to dispute what, I have to guess because they don't bother to cite, is a Kerry contention that Zarqawi wasn't involved with bin Ladin. Let's assume Kerry said this, though I remind you assuming anything is correct coming out of this bunch is asking for trouble, then based on what we know today Kerry was wrong. Zarqawi seems to indisputably have links to al-Qaida today at least and likely had at least some contact before the invasion to facilitate his role.

Steven Hayes and The Weekly Standard are famous apologists for The Project, as the mothership of neoconservatism and Irving Kristol's, a neoconservative movement founder, son William Kristol is the very editor of it. Seeing them quote a Weekly Standard article by Steven Hayes in a PR release is a bit like Sen. Hillary Clinton citing a White House Press release from her husband's administration talking about her good traits.

I'm certainly not convinced of anything based as a result of that memo.

I don't know if peaceful understanding and spirituality is my way. God, assuming there is something like this, likely lets folks have free choice because we need all kinds. Well, most kinds. By way of illustration, after taking on Big K and Redneck forcefully and with documentation Redneck ran away and Big K is sharing what I consider to be a much more elevated discussion with me at this point.

Maybe it's a guy thing, I don't know, but as an independant poster I see this phenomenon everywhere I go. Insults, rhetoric and ugliness until someone shows up with facts and solid arguments. Then people who really are looking for understanding come out of their ideological bunkers and take tenative steps into noman's land.

Saying I understand or want to understand someone doesn't seem as important as displaying integrity and convictions of my own and sometimes doing that in a manner that even by my own standards is exaggeratedly aggressive. You don't crack open a lobster's claw by pleading with it.

Ms. Cornell: While I admit that the Redneck was not always perfectly civil, both he and Big K have been part of the most reasoned debate here. Simply because someone disagrees with your political or religious position does not necessarily make them "not openhearted," it just means that their points of view and standards are different from yours.

I don't think anyone on either side can convince the other that they're right, but surely the people who are willing to participate in an open dialogue, rather than the ones who preferred to just call you names and leave, are the ones who one would wish to have contact with.

...Coulter is a shock jock; the problem is, she sways a lot of young minds to hate an entire category of people!
-Lydia Cornell

Ms. Cornell, about what category of people are you speaking? If it is Muslims don't you think Muslims themselves, as well as non-Muslims, are terrible victims of Islam and Sharia? Are you compassionate about the plight of Muslims in their chains of ideology as well? Or do you see Islam as a "Religion of Peace" which is morally equivalent to Christianity? Do you believe that if anyone points out the obvious flaws in any theology, he is guilty of "hate speech" and therefore must be a bigot?

Also in your opinion as a comedienne, Do Ann Coulter, and other Conservatives, get to use facetious, ironic hyperbole as well--or is that privilege reserved for Liberals alone? Obviously much of what she says is tongue-in-cheek, yet Liberals are fond of quoting her literally and ripping her for it.

Ms. Cornell, no doubt prayer is a remarkably powerful and inspiring practice. But did you expect God to reach down with a giant finger and stop the Holocaust? Prevent Katrina? Remove Saddam? No, obviously for good things to happen, good people must act. In the real world, things that we must do to fight evil are not always nice and pleasantly covered in little yellow smiley faces. Caring is good but by itself irrelevant; actions are ultimately what matter.

Also, in your conversations with God, has he revealed to you when your life began? At what moment do you think all genetic information is in place to create a human life? Does God consider it a sin to intentionally snuff out innocent human life?

#267 --- by an "entire category of people" I am talking about Liberals and Democrats, not Muslims, although I know she doesn't trust "swarthy" types, and she doesn't think women should have the right to vote --- we're too dumb. Ann Coulter, who calls herself a "public intellectual" not a comedienne or standup comedy actor --- has called for the killing of liberals in more ways than one, including I think the editors of the New York Times; she has 'jokingly' called for the assassination of a president (saying this was for Clinton a better choice than impeachment).

Al Franken is a comedian and comic actor --- and when he does satire it is Saturday-Night Live style over-the-top comedy. He has never called for the killing of anyone --- nor has Jimmy Carter, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Nor has everyone's favorite to hate, Michael Moore.

#268 --- There is no anthropomorphic God outside of ourselves. The kingdom of heaven is within us, and yes it is up to good men to cherish and care for our fellow man, to do good things, not destructive things. When we all turn the other cheek and truly begin to love each other, gain some humility, and see our part in any conflict with our neighbor/enemy --- when our hearts turn to love, we will abide in Love and we will see God, which is Love. This is the Second Coming.

There is no death; we are spiritual beings having a human experience and we are here for one reason: to learn to love each other. Pride has to be the first thing to go. (Which we are all guilty of at times.)

Piece of advice. Stop “exaggerating for effect.” It was not the effect I felt from that. Have I not addressed you with respect? Consistently said I am interested in informing about my religion if people are interested in hearing about it? I have not been calling names, or saying you are a hack, or attacking your livelihood, calling you a Nazi, un-Christian, ugly or any of that . I have even gone on record saying people that attack you are wrong. So please, read my posts and tell me where I have gone off the deep end on that one. I do not even think I have cussed.

As to me not being open hearted, why would I have stayed here so long and endured insults at the hands of so many, even yourself, if I were not thinking there is something of interest here to read? And I know there have been a post here or there that had to make you think but you have remained silent. How is that open minded? I am looking for debate, and the only one that has really offered it at this point is Autarkis.

I have conceded points to Autarkis, and even mentioned my respect for that person’s opinion. An opinion that obviously is different from mine.

And, interestingly, very strict Christian churches of all denominations are gaining attendance while other, less strict churches are loosing people. That has been a nationwide trend for some time. There are plenty of theories as to why. I think that if you go seeking answers to questions and someone tells you to do what you think is right, then your question was not answered.

I was not going to say this for fear that it would be taken out of context, but it is relevant. So please try to wrap your head around this one. I have a family member that for some odd reason became attracted to Satanism. I have been trying for years to get her to at least stop that, and I have been chipping away at it. The interesting thing is, that “religion” espouses doing what feels good for you. Have a question, what do you think is the answer? Have a problem with something, do what you think will benefit you to fix it. The Truth (with a capital T), by comparison is absolute. You either know it or you do not. If you do, and you believe it then you are told by Christ to spread it. Even if that means going into the lions den to feed him something he does not want (or into a liberal blog).

And I do read the Bible, quite often in fact. More when school is not in session ( and before someone quips grade school, I figured I would mention I am studying mechanical engineering at Arizona State University. I have little time to read for fun during the semester.)

I will agree with you on the power of prayer. I have seen it in my life, and for the people here do not do it, I recommend giving it a sincere try.

I will do more looking into The Project. As I said, I really did not know anything about them before. Just because a person shares some of my views dos not mean I agree with them.

My issue with most media these days is finding out what they leave out of the news. Sometimes, what they simply misrepresent. An example comes to mind. When the debate over the impending sunset of the “assault” weapons ban was coming up a government report came out that stated clearly the ban had no effect on crime rates that they were aware of. Now that was one line in a lengthy report, so people were able to pick other things out of it to paraphrase in a way to prove all sorts of points. Obtaining a copy of the report was not hard, it was not even that hard to read. From there I was able to look at the news in a different light. I was amazed at what they left out. So my skepticism of all news continues (all news includes Fox, yes). So I am looking for other ways to get it. The best way I have seen is to read a few of them and try to average them out. I even read Al-Jazeera. It pisses me off, but I read it anyway.

Big K: I prefer primary sources myself and recognise reporting can be stilted horribly. One of my hobbies is gaming - computer, video and back in my youth even a geeky thing called D&D. If you're in Engineering school you probably have run across folks familiar with it to say the least. The media coverage of roleplaying in the 80's was all shock and horror with folks in the Religious Right feeding a credulous press all kinds of nonsense. We're seeing the same thing all over again with videogames today.

Luckily for roleplaying, cooler heads and scientific studies proved the hobby the harmless diversion that fans always knew it was and the press moved on to sensationalizing something else. That hasn't happened yet where videogames are concerned but it's an inevitable part of the cultural cycle dating back to Elvis first shaking his hips.

So, even though I'm probably close to the opposite end of the cultural spectrum from you, I've my own reasons to be skeptical about mainstream reporting. I also read broadly though it's been quite a while since I've taken a look at al-Jazeera. I have to congratulate you on that.

Just because I have reason to mistrust The Project doesn't mean you won't end up agreeing with them yourself. If you do already it's likely because of arguments already put forth by this Administration which has adopted those views in whole. It led to The Bush Doctrine and the invasion of Iraq. It would be very easy of me to have had some fun with you for not knowing who The Project For A New American century is considering how central they are to what's going on right now and almost every debate we're having in this country. Neoconservativism goes beyond foreign policy...

Yeah, you could say I am familiar with D and D. Enough to get a good chuckle when I see someone wearing a “plus 1 shirt.” Good stuff.

I am certainly a video gamer as well. BF 2 is pretty cool. After finals next week I should be able to do more of that, and finish Don Quixote.

I do understand the issue with games. Especially ones where you can beat up people walking around or get power-ups from taking drugs. Do I think they should be banned? No, I think it should not have to be. I think people should have the intelligence to reject things like that on their own. But since they will not, at least little kids should not be playing them. If you are a long haired, 30 year old married gamer like myself knock yourself out if you want. That is a place I will not go with my right wing friends. I never go in with censorship. I have had my own boycott against Walmart for that reason. They censor music. I do not even listen to the stuff they censor either way. But I can not stand that.

On the other hand, at least right wingers are honest about their intentions. They call it censorship, there is no bones about it. Lefties will not call it censorship, but they will engage in it anyway.

...Metaphysics...is the answer to everything...Withdraw your attention from evil and it quiety expires from neglect...
-Lydia Cornell

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
-Thomas Jefferson

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemoller

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-George Santayana

Ms. Cornell, evil will not simply vanish because you pretend it does not exist, any more than truth becomes fiction because you refuse to believe it. The world does not revolve around oneself. Reality is not subjective; only one's perception of reality is subjective.

If you allow an evil bully to prey upon your friends, not only will you lose the loyalty of your friends, but you will encourage the bully to grow bolder. Next he will prey on you and you will face him alone.

Apparently Liberals are so narcissistic that they are unable to perceive these obvious facts or remember the lessons of history. They would rather study "metaphysics" or their navel or anything, that allows them to pose condescendingly above others, but which doesn't require any courage or conviction on their part.

You probably intended your statements to make you appear wise and profound. Unfortunately, they only make you look cowardly, self-centered and naive.

I understand that you would like to see millions more iraqi's and thousands more americans die while we "work things out" with a dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction, but i love america. and do u think if we'd all held hands and skipped for peace we would have ever broken off from england? freed the slaves? stopped hilter? no, we wouldn't have. you don't understand the real world.

I think there's some truth to that without getting into the nitty gritty of pending legislation. Liberal politicians will go after targets of opportunity where "family values" are concerned in an attempt to politically position themselves with voters. And I have to think alot of that has less to do with them actually caring about these issues, which it seems we agree are mostly nonsensical, than trying to market themselves to what they see as a growing conservative middle.

But ultimately, people in the middle and even on the left have more respect for science than people on the right. If I could walk into Congress and hand Lieberman a collection of studies proving no harm or damage comes to children from videogames, a collection that doesn't exist currently, then my gut tells me they'd tone it down.

My biggest problem with the right has to do with a seeming dismissal of science both on the part of industry lobbying groups/Republican administration officials and, here's a grenade that might test your patience with our detente, the religious right's disdain for scientifically established theories like evolution. You couple that with, what I see as, the wild distortions woven throughout the argument in favor of invading Iraq via neoconservatives in the VP's office and the OSP in The Pentagon and even an ornery independant like me starts feeling like listening to Barbara Streisand records while channeling the Dean scream.

Well, no. Not really. You could take your NRA approved automatic rifle and shoot me if that ever happened. But still, it's getting easier and easier for me to pick sides in these fights.

Allow me to digress. Tipper Gore was not pretty open about her intentions. So, the moral of the story is not to generalize. I have seen more censorship of ideas lately though committed by the left. Maybe that is just my perception.

And about Al-Jazeera. They are interesting, that is for sure. They are the best source of religious news I have found. All religions, not just Islam. If for some reason I get a bug up my hind parts to know where the pope is on tour I know I can find it there.

The disdain for science I think is largely misunderstood. We may reject that all life on Earth crawled from some primordial ooze, learned how to make pants, and now we have MTV. But that does not mean that nature is not able to evolve, things are not able to change. Of course evolution exists, but they reject Darwin’s most ambitious theories. And of course, they are considered theories. It seams a lot of people forget that. True science is able to stand up to criticism and debate. It seams that issue has been entirely gulped by its proponents as if it were the New Testament itself.

It is odd that people forget that scientific knowledge has been furthered by the religious. Ohm, Volta, Ampere ( should be recognized as names associated with units of measure in electricity) were all Catholics. Laplace and Bernoli were as well. Magellan too. Isaac Newton, was some flavor of Christianity. Little known fact on him, he died a virgin and was quite proud of it. Albert Einstein was very harsh on people who did not respect both science and religion, especially the scientists that blew off the other guys. And Steven Hawking, I think, but feel free to prove me wrong, is at least Agnostic. Some of the greatest minds in all history are listed here, and I could continue. But you wouldn’t know it today, most people think that they were something else.

Actually, I think most people don't care what religion a great scientific thinker was because scientific achievement stands or falls on its own merits. For the same reason we don't see much discussion about how many great scientific thinkers were homosexual or Latvian. The roots of much important scientific thinking is Muslim. Arabic numerals might have actually arisen in India but it was Arab intellectuals and mathematicians who popularized them in the West. Only after fundamentalists strands of the faith rose to strangle off scientific inquiry did Europe, centuries later, get remotely competative.

Which is what makes me wary of any religious fundamentalism. That's my bugbear right there.

We could get ourselves into a very healthy debate about what "scientific theory" actually means. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think our understanding of how gravity works is theoretical. Yet we're able to design technology that functions based on those theoretical constraints. Quite a bit of relatively settled science is theoretical. I say relatively because science is a self-correcting, never ending, process rather than a set array of permanent laws.

However I suggest we restrain ourselves. That debate is very much off topic here and we're not likely to resolve our differences.

Freedom Fan: Perhaps we can 'act out of caring.' But then again, that's just a matter of prioritizing and deciding what is most important to the futherance of whatever it is we want to see in the world. How do you define an act of caring? Where do you draw the line at what is an act of compassion and what is an act of aggression? These decisions are ours to make, these boundaries ours to draw. However, I do agree: in order for the world to change, people must act. But we need not act from a place of simple need for action-- the most effective action is engaged from a place of... well, whatever it is you want to bring about. Perhaps, in some cases, such as those that you described, it /is/ a place of caring. You can act out of caring, can't you? Maybe volunteering at an animal shelter, or a food pantry. That's acting out of caring and compassion for human life.

And even wars must sometimes be fought from a place of compassion for human life. But, unfortunately, this is not always the case, and the... darker side of things usually reveals to us that these are /not/ the intentions that wars are fought out of. This is a strictly alegorical example, but let's look at... World War II. How can we be sure that the need to stop Hitler was to protect people in Europe and not out of, say, some need to protect foreign bank interests? (I'm just being hypothetical, since I don't want to make up some huge scenario in a post like this.)

You see what I'm saying? Yes, wars are sometimes necessary, and yes, sometimes violence /is/ the last resort answer, but we need to be /sure/ that we are acting from a place of caring compassion and not of greed and self-aggrandizement.

Big K, you said: "But that does not mean that nature is not able to evolve, things are not able to change. Of course evolution exists, but they reject Darwin’s most ambitious theories. And of course, they are considered theories. It seams a lot of people forget that. True science is able to stand up to criticism and debate."

You make the mistake that many conservatives make in your post. A scientific theory is (from Wikipedia): "In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."

So, you see, this argument does not hold water. Darwin's theories are by definition "true science". The have been "able to stand up to criticism and debate." We (and I say we because I am a scientist) have attempted to falsify Darwin's theories for many years, and these attempts have been unsuccessful. In fact, we see natural selection and evolution of new species taking place on very rapid time scales in certain instances such as in cichlid fish.

Darwin was a very bright man, but there were some things that he could not figure out. First of all, in Darwin's time, it was believed that there was no life prior to the Cambrian (about 500 million years ago). We now know that this was not true. In fact, there is evidence that microbial life (bacteria) began as long ago as 3.5 BILLION years ago, and it is universally accepted (among educated scientists and geologists) that by 3 billion years ago there were complex communities of microbial mats throughout the world.

SO, this is the part that you guys love to completely ignore--life did not jump up out of the "primordial ooze" and pull on a pair of pants. Life on Earth has been a work in progress for over 3 billion years, with amazing things happening like lateral transfer of entire genomes, and symbiotic relationships creating more and more complex life forms (look some of these terms up--I guarantee you will be astounded).

We have also had periods of punctuated equilibrium, where huge explosions of evolution rapidly occurred in response to various forcing mechanisms. In fact the "Cambrian Explosion" represents a time when the Earth's atmosphere first became fully oxygenated, and larger organisms that used more energy were able to evolve. Where did the oxygen come from? Those microbial mats I spoke of earlier developed oxygenic photosynthesis about 2 billion years ago, and were busily pumping O2 into the atmosphere (ironically, ultimately at their own expense, as they were largely displaced by the animals, plants, and algae that were able to outcompete--or eat--them once the oxygen they needed became available.)

So, I would be a liar to state that we have everything figured out, but we do know that the arguments that the "Intelligent Design" folks put out there are completely bogus. Now if you want to rail about something posing as science, that would be a good place to start. Intelligent design IS NOT science, nor even a theory because it is not testable. It is a (half-baked) idea put forth by the same people who just a few years ago were trying to convince us that Adam and Eve appeared on our planet some few thousand years ago and rode around on dinosaurs during their leisure time.

I never meant that Darwin did not study true science, or was not a true scientist. I mean that people seam to take that as unequivocal fact. It is a theory, not Darwin’s Law of evolution. And I do know what the distinction is.

And thank you for clarifying what I already said. Evolution exists, is testable, is fact. We can observe it in nature and eat popcorn while so doing. Great. Now how did life originate? Where did it come from? Where does it go after death? When something dies, why can we not fix something and jump start the person like a car? What are the intrinsic properties of “life?” Are those properties something we can bottle and sell in the future? Science alone can not answer these questions, and I submit to you that science never will.

To answer your question Autarkis, no we do not have that great of a knowledge of gravity. We know that it is related to the mass of an object, and can quantify the relationship, but otherwise it is a mystery. So far as anyone can tell, it does not seam to be related to magnetism (something else we do not know enough about) and there are no other binding ties that have been found to explain it. Even today it is an enigma. Light is also. Is it a wave, a particle? It acts like both. How can light pass through some objects and not others? Transparency is in itself a mystery. We can manipulate it, but honestly, we have no idea the specific mechanics behind it.

So, scientists will have job opportunities in the future. That is a good thing.

How do you define an act of caring? Where do you draw the line at what is an act of compassion and what is an act of aggression? These decisions are ours to make, these boundaries ours to draw. However, I do agree: in order for the world to change, people must act…Yes, wars are sometimes necessary, and yes, sometimes violence /is/ the last resort answer, but we need to be /sure/ that we are acting from a place of caring compassion and not of greed and self-aggrandizement.
-Kevin, comment 281

Excellent point, Kevin. In harmony with Conservative principles, acting out of self-interest is not necessarily evil; it is a natural human (and animal) trait. What separates humans from the rest of creation is their capacity for free will; this is why living in a free society is vital in order to self-actualize as a human. However, greed is evil and can be defined as “coveting something for nothing”; the ultimate greedy person will steal, rape, or even kill—taking whatever he wants regardless of the consequences to others.

The Western Free Enterprise economic system is so successful because it harnesses man’s innate self-interest with Christ’s Golden Rule. In other words, it is moral to desire anything as long one can acquire it by offering a willing party a good or service of equal or greater value.

Similarly, just as it is moral and necessary for society to punish a sociopath who commits murder or other crimes, it is sometimes necessary for a society to wage war to protect its people and its allies from mortal danger. War is justified when there is a real threat, by a greedy immoral enemy, to a nation’s freedom or vital national interests.

Although the Golden Rule states “do unto others as you would have them to unto you”, there would appear to be a flip side to this. If I am an evil person who harms you or violates your basic human rights, I should expect to receive similar treatment from you, or just punishment from society. Similarly, if I am a greedy dictator who invades Kuwait to steal its oil, I should expect an appropriate response from the United States.

Well, that somewhat creates a difficulty. Because then you get into territory where you start labeling your enemy 'immoral'-- and then, that leads to you seeing yourself as 'moral,' which, to me, would create a problem. Because morals are such a grand and varied topic of disagreement amongst... well, everyone, this gives the impression-- an incorrect one, of course, but this is what about it that bothers me --that you could really call /any/one who did something contrary to your country's widely-accepted morals 'immoral,' and thus justify some sort of action against them. If a country is run strictly by homosexuals, for instance, and your country holds homosexuality as immoral, then that might justify some kind of action against them... see what I'm saying? I don't mean this to be an insane-o slippery slope argument, but it's one of the things that scares me about a society based on 'morals' instead of, well, 'what works,' given what the society wants to be, do, have, or experience. In which case, it is no longer a case of 'self-interest,' but 'common interest'-- interest in the safety and health of the people who are being harmed or repressed or subjugated.

And, one more time. I do not endorse war. War is ugly. War is despicable. People /die/ in war. It is the most bare-bones, gruesome solution to /anything,/ and need only be engaged in as an /absolute last resort alternative./ There are so many others forms of communication-- let not violence become the primary. I think that's something that was somewhat disregarded with our latest foray into Iraq, but that's an opinion all another.

"Now how did life originate? Where did it come from? Where does it go after death? When something dies, why can we not fix something and jump start the person like a car? What are the intrinsic properties of “life?” Are those properties something we can bottle and sell in the future? Science alone can not answer these questions, and I submit to you that science never will."

It might surprise you to learn I can agree with that. I might suspect science can sort out how life originated, there's an ongoing lab project along those lines right now at a major university. But assuming there is something to go somewhere after death, that's the province of spirituality and faith. To the extent it shapes people's behavior for the better in their living days, expectations about a judgement in the afterlife are a healthy thing.

Although there was a fascinating recent roleplaying game, Orpheus, that speculated what scientists might find if they could step across the shroud and how commercialized the whole thing became when they realized what they could do with projecting agents turned into temporary ghosts. It was set in, essentially, Limbo.

Which brings us to another problem with basing public policy on religion rather than rational discourse that, at its best, is based on scientific knowledge. The Pope just declared Limbo defunct. And that's pretty much that. Now imagine if we actually had a raging debate in this country about whether Limbo existed. Imagine The Pope suddenly ruling that politicians that insist on Limbo's existence be denied communion?

Freedom Fan: I'm not much of a theologian but I suspect "coveting something for nothing" is envy. Greed is acting out of self-interest to acquire material goods without regard for the well-being of others. Keep in mind that for most of Christianity's history, traders were seen as unscrupulous people making an illicit ducat off the backs of others. Christians were even forbidden moneylending which is why it fell to Jews and later, with dispensations, to The Templars during The Crusades. Now I'd argue that in the middle ages this was in no small part encouraged by the nobility who saw the rising fortunes of free guildsmen as a threat and employed The Church as allies.

Still, there's not any natural, historical, affiliation between capitalism and Christianity until The Victorian Era where you start seeing the popularization of spreading of Christian morals and civilization, including the science of the times, to benighted savages in far off lands. Hot on the heels of those idealists, however misguided, and soon outstripping them were the colonial Companies that proceeded to exploit those very same natives.

We're still dealing with the fallout of that mess everywhere from Iraq to China. The difference between us and Europe is that for the longest time Arabs and Chinese alike looked to America as different than the Europeans because we didn't have a history of colonization and were a rebellious former colony ourselves. That overlooks things like the Phillipines but it was largely true. Over time we managed to erase the distinctions in other ways.

Is there a flip side to the Golden Rule? Or is it simply convenient to imagine one? Like I said, I'm no theologian.

Actually, I picked up the Websters and I'll correct myself. Greed is defined as "a desire to acquire more than one needs or desires" but I'd still argue that it tends to manifest in the manner I described.

Autarkis: My online Websters defines greed as "excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness". I think that's fair if rather concise. Consider this example: who is the virtuous person: The rich man or the poor man? Answer: Not enough information given. What if that poor person inherited a fortune, squandered it, became a heroine addict and now begs from the street corner and steals television sets at night; whereas the rich man started with nothing, worked hard, built a company employing hundreds, dealt honestly with suppliers and customers, observed proper environmental practices, produced valuable products widely used to make life easier and more enjoyable? Who is the greedy person? Who is following the Golden Rule?

Also your assertion, about ancient Christians not embracing Free Enterprise, is largely irrelevant. The fact that historically, certain people calling themselves Christians did ignorant wicked things is not sufficient to indict an entire religion. My only point, as illustrated above, is that Capitalism is in harmony with the Judeo-Christian principle of the Golden Rule. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Deist like many of our American founding fathers, although I’m a big fan of Jews and Christians.

Also I noticed you did not answer the question about when life begins or whether it is sacred. Kudos for a very lengthy, somewhat effective diversion, however.

To be honest, my study has not gotten much into those areas yet. I know enough to get myself into trouble. I am very curious however, and you may want to look at String Theory as well when you are checking those other things out. There are some books that you can look into that you do not need a PhD to understand that delve into these subjects. Might I recommend Steven Hawkins The Universe in a Nutshell, A Short History of Time, or other such books.

A quick aside on Galileo. What really got him in trouble was not so much his message, but how he chose to move it forward. He wrote a book called Discorsi e Domistrazioni Matematiche, or Dialogues Concerning Two Sciences. In it, he had a fictional discussion between two people, one on each side of the earth is round/flat fence. The earth is flat guy wins the argument in the end. His mistake, which many people make today, was to think the pope an idiot. In the book, he chose a name for the earth is flat guy that actually means idiot in some weird language. The pope was fluent in six languages. It was discovered rather quickly. At that time free speech was not in practice as we know it anywhere in the world. This could not be gotten away with no matter where he was, or what religion. The pope had some mercy on his friend, however and made the punishment as light as he could, still allowing him to do research. He published his greatest work during this time, Two New Sciences. Both sides were wrong, that is of course obvious.

Freedom Fan: Just a quick note about online Websters. It's an online project like Wikipedia based on the 1913 edition of Webster's dictionary with users modifing and changing entries. That's not at all a bad thing but it's not the same thing as the commercial, modern, versions of the dictionary. And there are several versions of that as well. I used Webster's II New Riverside Edition...

At any rate, I'm certain a religious scholar would have better luck than either of us coming up with a canon definition of "greed". Of course, you know what they say about religious scholars. One theology student is a drunk. Two are a brawl. Three's a revolution. Or is that the Irish?

In general, capitalism is an amazing engine for prosperity and it's very possible to live within the Golden Rule while pursuing commercial goals. I wouldn't have it any other way. But I do have trouble seeing the gentle wisdom of Christ embodied in the raging lunacy of people like Dobson, Robertson and Falwell. I don't think the Deists among our Founders, rationalists all - Deism to them was recognising that God's pretty much gotten out of the way and doing the right thing is up to us - would have seen them as anything less than our worst nightmare.

I can't imagine Christ taking a look at a secular leader taking his largest lifetime contributions from an outfit like Enron, which was the case for President Bush until just a couple years ago, and think that this was what he had in mind.

He might be troubled to learn that the disparity between rich and poor in this country is growing at a staggering rate with no end in sight and that Christians, at least the Fundamentalist ones, seem to celebrate this as the bounty of God when they're on the receiving end.

But that's Ceasar's business. Maybe Christ wouldn't have given it much thought at all. He probably would be astounded to find that someone capable of mocking a prisoner begging for her life, see Carla Faye Tucker, called him his favorite philosopher. And then that this fellow launched wars, if not in his name, at least because he thought God put him in the Presidency to do this? And God's vicar, The Pope, tried to talk him out of one of them?

I think he'd probably scratch his head and wander up North to join The Quakers. At least they're trying.

Not all of the popes edicts are all that important, even to Catholics. It is not like you would show up to church and be given a pamphlet on all of the utterances of the Holy See for that week. And the existence or nonexistence of limbo is not going to create rioting anywhere. I do not think that was a good example of your point.

Religion, however has played a part in the creation of our laws. From what I understand, a copy of the 10 Commandments has hung in the Supreme Court since day 1. they cover up the first couple, but the rest is considered inspiration and guidance. We should get a lawyer in here to discus this though. Did I just say that?!

I know, the Limbo example was deliberately ridiculous. It's not like a rational, non-theological, discussion could even resolve the matter. That's something entirely in the hands of whatever religions dwell upon such ethereal nuances.

Here's an interesting article, I'll confess I just engaged in a bit of Google-Fu to do some quick research on the claim about the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court. I know lots n' lots but sometimes I have to stretch a bit. Yeah, I know, humility not my strong suit.

It's from a "seperationist" point of view but it does appear well researched and documented. Call us even for my delving into The Project's site. Although I still think you come out ahead.

#295 I have heard of String Theory but have not 'gone there' yet. Have a small insight of the concept. I find putting these 'new concepts' into consciousness is a feat unto itself. Thank you for the recommendation. I have watched many docos of Hawkings and think he is has an incredible mind. Also have his "Stephen Hawkings Universe" which I have yet to read. (My library is stocked with books crying for my attention). Best I get back to doing my homework. My journey began with Metaphysics and brought me to physics. I feel handicapped now, it is very hard for me not having a math background to draw on. But am so OT now, best leave and let you all carry on your debate. M4

Big K, I am reading your posts now because I see you have much to offer and because I am a seeker of knowledge, I find them interesting. There is a new area of scientific study....I call it New Science. The discoveries are happening so fast that our text books cannot keep up with them. I have heard it stated that our text books are some 20 years behind time in view of recent discoveries...quantum theory, chaos theory, holographic universe, etc. You may familiar with these books, authors are Gleick, Sheldrake, Talbot, Wolf. These are people that our 'out of the box' and not supported by the majority of main stream scientists who fear that the world view may change. I am reminded of Galileo when he proclaimed the world round, not flat, he paid dearly. He was correct but persecuted.
I do not wish to enter this debate as I am not feel qualified to do so, not being a scientist, but am open to these theories which stike a chord with me.
M4

”Al Franken is a comedian and comic actor --- and when he does satire it is Saturday-Night Live style over-the-top comedy. He has never called for the killing of anyone…Coulter, I believe (maybe I'm wrong) stands alone in her death-wish-speak…”
-Lydia Cornell, comment 269

"Like Fredo [the wimpy brother in GodFather II], somebody ought to take him [George W. Bush] out fishing and phuw. " [Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.]
-Randi Rhoades on Air America radio May 2004

…we ...would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! Wait! ... Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death, and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.
-Alec Baldwin on NBC's "Late Night with Conan O'Brien” 1998

Ms. Cornell, Ann Coulter sometimes goes over-the top in her attempt to be funny. I don’t think it’s funny when she does it, but I don’t take such comments seriously. If anyone does, then to be consistent, he must also believe that bozo Baldwin was serious about murdering the Henry Hyde and his family and ruthless Rhoades was serious about killing President Bush. I would call such talk tasteless and undoubtedly represents a mean-spirited character flaw, but it is not evil per se.

But I can’t blame you for ignoring my question; here it is again: “When did your life begin? At what moment is all genetic information in place necessary to create a human life? Does God consider it a sin to intentionally snuff out innocent human life?”

You obviously avoid answering because to do so would expose your transparent hypocrisy. There is no way someone can simultaneously pose as a devoutly religious Christian and a Kool-aid-drinking Liberal. Best to keep quiet; maybe no one will notice.

So I submit: To be a Liberal one must be either dishonest, insane, intellectually lazy, or some combination. For example, the most famous Democrat, Bill Clinton is a compulsive, “exceptionally good liar” according to Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE). By mentally compartmentalizing, he is able to maintain, and appear to genuinely believe, a variety of conflicting information (lies) without the cognitive dissonance experienced by folks with a functioning conscience. The important thing with Liberals is “feelings”--truth is generally unimportant and inconvenient to them.

Unless, of course, to these people, 'feelings' beget truth, and your feelings on things will lead you to your subjective truth. Which is why feelings and truth might be so easily coupled in such an argument.

M4, yeah, physics is pretty math intensive. Chemistry you can get along without it, but physics you cannot. Although I recommend work on higher math skills, no matter what you are studying, it can certainly be good for anyone. It helps to develop a way of solving problems, and that skill set can carry over into all kinds of things.

Big K, one more OT statement, my son is a math wizard. He is also an excellent golfer. I have often told him he is so good at golf because he knows geometry. He can easily calculate where to aim his shot to end up where he wants to. I don't think the average person realizes how much math is used in everyday life. We use it in so many ways, as you stated, and don't even realize it. M4

Freedom Fan, you ask: "In your conversations with God, has he revealed to you when your life began? At what moment do you think all genetic information is in place to create a human life? Does God consider it a sin to intentionally snuff out innocent human life?"

When I got sober on Sept. 11, 11 years ago --- I experienced a string of catastrophic miracles, spine-tingling evidence of what I now call God in my life. Around this time I found my younger brother's body, bloated and purple with lividity --- and I began my spiritual search. And yes, I am absolutely sure of the answers to these questions. But I don't want to impose my discoveries on you without some background, and this is not the place. I have written extensively on life, love, death, faith and spirit --- and my humiliating adventures in spiritual growth.

For me the key is in Christ’s words and the meaning behind his parables. We are eternal and spiritual. And God is love. Love is an actual energy --- where you put your thoughts, there your heart is. If we were all to focus only on the good, the love in each other, we would create heaven on earth. It's here, we just can't see it, but some can when they change their perspective. And in this expression, as a reflection of God, we come into form to express God’s qualities through man, an idea. Man was made in God's image, which is spiritual. Since the human body seems to be made of finite matter or dust (as in “we return to dust”) then the actual body is not that important. You cannot kill spirit. So putting so much emphasis on the fetus as “life” when the body itself does not contain “life” the soul does, is wrong to me. Soul never dies, cannot be killed, is at-one-with God (atonement.) Is killing pro-life? Wars cause more damage to the families left fatherless, motherless and without their loved ones. The spirit lives on and becomes one with love, with or without the body. Also, when you raise your consciousness, you see that death and suffering are a mortal illusion. Life is spiritual and eternal.

I feel God can be proved through science --- because thought and love are energy and are molecular... but more about this in several books that are coming out in the next year. Through my own horrific crash and burn I was forced to find these answers on a very personal level. I explain this better on my website. Have to go, my kids are home and we are decorating the tree tonight ---
love,
Lydia

Big K: One more thing, this Sunday on MSNBC at 9PM they're going to be having a full hour on the Jihad in Iraq. Based on a brief plug with the journalist behind it, it will be covering issues like how our invasion is increasing recruiting for al-Qaida. They're talking to supporters of the war, critics, and even some jihadis.

It was good talking to you as well. Maybe I'll run into you one day in BF2. When I get a better graphics card.

The woman is certifiable. Let us kill the kids because their bodies are not that important, just their spiritual selves. That argument could be used to justify killing all over the place. With that I see you are a lost cause, Ms Cornell. I sincerely hope for the best for you, and that your spiritual journey will put you in the presence of God someday. I honestly think you need to listen to yourself sometime though. That was the nuttiest thing I have heard on this or any other blog. Seriously, talk like that in front of the wrong people in a hospital would get you in a straight jacket on interesting drugs. That is nonsense.

Autarkis, your powers of intellect were wasted defending this one. If I get a chance Sunday I will try to catch that special, but I got lots of studying to do for finals the next day. See you in bf2, hopefully.

See the rest of you guys later. I may check in to see if Ms. Cornell is going to call me more names after not reading my posts. But I hope for the best for all. Merry Christmas.

Lydia --- As a recovering Catholic, I couldn't agree with you more. You put it so profoundly, but you can't expect people to get it --- at least people here on this post. They are not seeking. When you seek you find. Very enlightened! I can't wait to read your books. I also found God on a very personal level through tragedy. Max

#303 Lydia, I have often read that a spiritual awakening comes when one has hit bottom, has no where else to go, then begins to question. That is exactly what happened to me. I absolutely agree with your comments. I prayed continuously for guidance and was shown so much. Question after question was answered. I soon became aware that the answers would come in the most unexpected ways. I wanted to share what was happening to me but no one understood, I don't think people do unless they have experienced what we have. I felt like I was putting together a puzzle, had alot of 'aha' moments, then realized I had only gotten a small piece of the puzzle. I traveled my journey alone...with God as my teacher, speaking to me through meditation, books, and people. I am still on the journey, have taken a detour right now and gotten caught up in the politics of world. But I believe we are undergoing a planetary initiation at this time, as has happened many times in the history of earth. Some will 'graduate', some will not. That is okay. We are a microcosm within the macrocosm, what is happening here is happening in the cosmos. A war is being waged in the world of Spirit as well as well as in matter, a war for our very Souls. As above, so below. M4

Sorry about your brother. I lost my brother too.
Don't let the primitive thinkers drag you down. Our thoughts really do create our reality. Did you read Wayne Dyer's 'Your See It When you Believe it"? Great book. Great wisdom. Thank you.

That's rather cruel, Big K. In Japan or China or India, that sort of talk wouldn't be out-of-place anywhere, least of all a sacred space.

Be aware that you're framing your opinion in the experience that you are currently... experiencing. Your religious values create different perceptions than one who shares... different religious values. That sounds reptitive, but it's true.

Lydia's actually speaking from a very Hindu place (Samkara's views on it, mainly), so this isn't such a weird thing to hear anywhere outside of the U.S.

"When did your life begin? At what moment do you think all genetic information is in place to create a human life? Does God consider it a sin to intentionally snuff out innocent human life?"

Your response:

"...Man was made in God's image, which is spiritual. Since the human body seems to be made of finite matter or dust (as in “we return to dust”) then the actual body is not that important. You cannot kill spirit. So putting so much emphasis on the fetus as “life” when the body itself does not contain “life” the soul does, is wrong to me. Soul never dies, cannot be killed, is at-one-with God..."

...I am absolutely sure of the answers to these questions. But I don't want to impose my discoveries on you without some background, and this is not the place... [Of course abortion is a sin, but I can't actually state that because then all my liberal buddies would ostracize me, or even worse, accuse me of being a right-wing nut, and there goes my acting career.]

This is how your response sounds to me using my "primitive" thought processes; kindly allow me to attempt to paraphrase the essence of your answer:

Freedom Fan, you have asked me the wrong question. God doesn't really care about whether a person takes an innocent life, since the soul is all that matters. God does not really define sin anywhere except in that bogus Ten Commandments stuff, which was all superseded by Jesus when God changed his mind in 0 AD.

Besides, you Conservatives are inconsistent hypocrites because you moan endlessly about abortion, yet support soldiers who kill other soldiers or accidentally kill civilians in the course of defending of their homeland and loved ones from vicious tyrants. True, the Old Testament states that God blessed the armies of King David and other righteous leaders, but that war thang also became obsolete with the birth of Jesus.

I'm being consistent because whether or not a person is killed by another in any manner for any reason is irrelevant; his soul endures regardless. So lose the nattering about abortion, war, capital punishment, and other boring topics already. It just does not matter a whit. The important thing is that I think positive thoughts, read the Bible, love everyone except Ann Coulter, and imagine wonderful things in my head because that, after all, is the only reality. You Conservatives will never understand; this higher realm of metaphysical thinking is beyond your Neanderthal level of comprehension.
-Freedom Fan (channeling Lydia Cornell)

Forgive me if you feel I misunderstand your thinking; please set me straight. It’s just that my mind requires consistency (the “hobgoblin of small minds” I know) in order to function.

Freedom Fan, I think what she's trying to state is that her version of God does not define anything as a 'sin,' for She is All Things, and therefore requires nothing to be happy. There is nothing you can do to offend Him, because She has nothing to require of you-- what could He, being One Thing Everywhere? Therefore, there is no 'sin,' because there is nothing that somehow harms the ego of her God-figure, because her God-figure has no ego to be harmed. What she is stating, and forgive me if I'm off, is that, to her, there is no Absolute Morality governing everything, and therefore nothing to debate about 'sin' or 'absolutely morally wrong.' However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't make our /own/ choices about what works and doesn't work in our society given what we're trying to be, do, or have, but it just means that there's no one 'up there' that requires us to feel one way or the other or face consequences.

You're correct that moral relativism is a central tenet of the Secular religion of Liberals. What I don't get is how one can possibly reconcile that stance with devout Christianity. Obviously Christ talked about sin; it is one of the main themes of the Bible. How can one believe the Bible, yet maintain that there is really no such thing as absolute good and evil?

Moral relativism essentially states that something is good or evil depending on the circumstances; how I "feel" at the moment will establish right or wrong. We must never criticize anything as "evil" because that would be "judgemental" and demonstrate that we are not "open minded". (Every time I hear the phrase "open minded" I picture someone's head with a massive hole allowing his brains to slide onto the floor, but I digress.)

This nonsense does not "work" for a Conservative. Things must be pretty much black or white; true or false. While Conservatism elevates the individual above any social group, it never maintains that the universe revolves around an individual and his feelings. Man is subordinate to God; God exists regardless of whether an individual chooses to believe in Him. Similarly, reality and truth exist independent from an individual's subjective mental illusions; only perceptions of reality change from person to person.

It seems to me that the whole point of religion is to establish moral principles before one actually needs to use them.

I have studied other religions and agree that some of her thoughts seem to be consistent with Hindu and Buddhist ideas, I take no issue there. What I do have an issue with is her assertion that abortion is ok because we do not kill the spirit of the thing. Thinking this through to conclusion you must arrive at a place where killing of any kind is alright for the same reason. The argument of more or less destructiveness becomes moot point. Even the proponents of the view that the child would not be wanted or cared for has some merit. At least that denotes some introspective, that the person is not strong enough to handle the consequences of their actions. That can be worked with. But this, there is no bright light at the end of that tunnel. It is honestly the stupidest argument for abortion I have ever heard.

Lydia, I suggest you look very seriously at Christ again. He was a decisive man, there was no conflict in Him. He never said, hey, I don’t like this but….. and that is half your argument with abortion. No one likes it, but hey, what are we going to do?

I had to clarify, that post yesterday took me off guard. I had to read it a few times. I had more respect for her before that post, and just could not believe what I was reading.

I can't imagine Christ taking a look at a secular leader taking his largest lifetime contributions from an outfit like Enron, which was the case for President Bush until just a couple years ago, and think that this was what he had in mind.
...
He might be troubled to learn that the disparity between rich and poor in this country is growing at a staggering rate with no end in sight and that Christians, at least the Fundamentalist ones, seem to celebrate this as the bounty of God when they're on the receiving end.
-Autarkis

Autarkis, apparently you consider it a wrong for a politician to take political contributions from legitimate, legal entities. As you will recall, Enron was a legitimate public company, subject to the scrutiny of independent certified audits by Arthur Anderson. Later it was discovered that Enron was corrupt and Arthur Anderson was culpable as well. Today neither entity exists. Greed may exist but Free Enterprise in America still works remarkably well.

Liberals seem obsessed with the “disparity between rich and poor” in the U.S. Conservatives are more concerned with equality of opportunity, not equality of economic outcome. Poverty statistics purposely exclude transfer payments to welfare recipients. America’s poor have electricity, telephones, television sets and eat well; many seem to overeat. With unemployment levels steady at around 5%, jobs are available for those who want to work. The poor in our country are wealthy by historical standards and wealthy in comparison to most of those in many other countries within Africa, South America and Asia. This is no accident; Free Enterprise works well for everyone.

The U.S. income tax structure is already highly progressive. The richest (highest earning) 1% of Americans pay about one third of all taxes; whereas the richest 10% pay over 50% of all taxes. Democrats scream that Dubya’s tax cuts benefit mostly the “rich”. Well duh, it is the rich who pay most of the taxes! There is no way not to benefit the rich disproportionately with an across-the-board tax cut, given we have a progressive system in which the rich pay a disproportionate share of taxes. The only way to make Liberals happy is either to never grant a tax cut, raise taxes even more, or make the tax structure still more progressive. Our inherent human nature cannot be changed; people will achieve that for which they are rewarded, and avoid work for which they are punished. The marvelous engine of Free Enterprise depends upon economic incentives for producers; everyone benefits as a result.

The various dictionary definitions of “greed” are merely fun with semantics. Greed cannot be established merely by tallying a person’s net worth. Liberals assign greed to anyone, more successful than they are, who is not willing to gleefully part with his property for the good of society (them). I submit the opposite: That the greedy person is the one who expects someone else to give him something, in exchange for absolutely nothing in return. The central tenet of socialism is “from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need” [by force if necessary, which means usually]. When a socialist states this, with which person is he identifying--the former or the latter? Of course it is always the latter—the parasite, never the former—the producer.

The greedy person scoffs at the Biblical admonition to never “covet thy neighbor’s property”. Similarly, the greedy person’s philosophy is not in harmony with Christ’s Golden Rule. But freedom and Free Enterprise is.

#312 FF, I love your statement about open-minded...a head with a hole and brains sliding on the floor. That was great. Sometimes I feel that way...lol. Personally I do not think Lydia has personally attacked anyone here. She is coming from a different perspective of 'reality'.

I posted earlier on this site about my belief in the Christian religion and many felt personally attacked by me. I was not attacking anyone. Perhaps I was a bit blunt but my point was that it seems to me that Christianity itself is divided on who is right and who is wrong. To make this whole issue less complicated for me, I choose to look at other 'religions' and see the similiarities of the basic teachings. I then came to the conclusion that my beliefs covered the range of Spirit, rather than a particular religion, because all the 'religions' had their 'grey' areas ie: different interpretations. But the underlying theme was Love.

I do not see issues in black and white. I see much grey. I see people evolving on their own timetable. I am not one to judge where anyone is on their path, that is between them and their God. While I have used the word 'primative', I used it to denote those who have not begun a personal search, or seek answers to the bigger questions. The first being 'why am I here'. I certainly did not mean to imply they were animals or stupid.

I am the first to acknowledge I certainly don't know the answers. All I can do is keep seeking. I don't know when a soul enters the body, at conception, at physical birth. I don't know. But I certainly don't blame God when man chooses to kill for whatever reason. That is a choice made by man, not God.

I also believe we live in a Universe, one of millions, perhaps billions, teeming with life. I believe we are a molecule in the grand scheme of things. I don't believe we have a monopoly on the Architect of this plan. I believe consciousness does live on after physical death and our souls go to school there as well. I am speaking esoterically now and know my comments may be misunderstood. I do, however, believe everyone is where they are supposed to be right now. A black and white world would serve well, but it doesn't, hasn't, and won't until the grey areas are sorted out imo. M4

I repeat: I am not pro-abortion. I could never have an abortion, especially now that I have children. But the alternative is more dangerous: illegal abortions or self-inflicted abortions, which are bound to occur when a woman is desperate.

I have stringent morals. My children know the difference between right and wrong. Unkindness and intolerance are far worse than the things certain religious fanatics are obsessed with. But shining a light on hatred and intolerance is not hate-speak itself. Many of you have twisted my words completely, and put words in my mouth.

God is love. Life is spiritual and eternal. We are spiritual beings having a human experience and we never die. Christ Jesus was the Master Metaphysician and we are all supposed to be doing the healings he did. The kingdom of heaven is within us; there is no external God, but there is a power greater than ourselves --- and that is Love. Divine love is unconditional and forgiving --- even of the worst sins. Remember, Moses killed a man and yet God used him to deliver the Ten Commandments. Christ came with the good news: that if we realize our true nature and abide in love, we shall see God: We are made of Love.

By the way, there is no solid matter, even in the nucleus of an atom. Like the "Miracle in the Water" (type in Google to see how a water molecule is transformed by love & prayer) --- our thoughts have transformative power, so we should keep our thoughts on love, and pray for the people we most despise. That does them more good than bashing them. Let's take the plank out of our own eye (and me too!) before taking other people's rights away. The Christ Truth is in each of us: Love.

FF#312: You say this: "Obviously Christ talked about sin; it is one of the main themes of the Bible. How can one believe the Bible, yet maintain that there is really no such thing as absolute good and evil?"

But Christ said this: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Christ talks about the sins of the Pharisees --- the arrogant religious priests who made so many rules and judged others and were hypocrites. He talked mainly about loving your neighbor as yourself and loving your enemies. He talked of little else and hardly mentioned any other sins. (His words are in the Sermon on the Mount and in the parables.) You are referring to the Old Testament. Christ came with the New Law: he got mad at the people for judging the prostitute. To him, the true sinners were the hypocrital pharisees who constantly were looking at what other people were doing! "Leave judgment and vengeance to God."

Ms. Cornell forgive me if I misinterpreted your words. But when someone says something so outrageous like "killing someone doesn't really matter because the soul lives on", I sometimes fall back on satire because I feel foolish trying to argue with such statements. I think: Well maybe if I paraphrase the way this sounds to me the other person will realize how utterly wrongheaded it really is. Plus I try to have some fun in the process. As a comedienne, surely you recognize that an insult, tastefully delivered, is actually an art form. I view sparring in blogs as a sort of chess match. So I mean you no harm, but I am challenging you to think and be specific as far as what you truly believe.

I repeat: I am not pro-abortion. I could never have an abortion, especially now that I have children. But the alternative is more dangerous: illegal abortions or self-inflicted abortions, which are bound to occur when a woman is desperate.
-Lydia Cornell

So you would concur that Christ considers abortion a sin, but society should allow abortions for practical reasons. Actually I conditionally may not have a problem with that answer. However, unlike Babs Boxer, Teddy Kennedy, and other uber Liberals, I do have a problem allowing doctors to kill babies in the course of third trimester deliveries (aka partial birth abortion). For example, I have friends, who as a couple, gave premature birth to fraternal twins--a little boy and a little girl--well before the third trimester. Today they are both in first grade.

...The kingdom of heaven is within us; there is no external God, but there is a power greater than ourselves --- and that is Love...
-Lydia Cornell

Okay, I am beginning to understand, I was confused as to how someone could be both a Liberal and a devout Christian. But what I think I hear you say is that the Bible is a very nice book with useful lessons, but God is actually a man-made fiction. In other words, if all of humanity were to perish today, God would also perish. There is no God external to our own beings. Such a belief system would appear to be consistent with atheism or secular humanism. It would also be consistent with mainstream Liberal thought. Thanks for the clarification.

Hi Ann. I am a huge fan. But don't you feel somewhat ashamed for publishing Ms. Cornell's personal information and subjecting her to potential physical harm?

Furthermore, don't you think that suggesting we cavity search only the swarthy types at airports makes you sound like a bigot? Don't you think that the bad guys can figure out how to slip in a white Johnnie Taliban Walker at the airport? Would that make us feel more safe to travel by air? Would that encourage the moderate Muslims to cooperate with the authorities?

Also your lame jokes about killing people are patently unfunny. You only give ammunition to the Liberals when you do that.

You are a brilliant woman, but sometimes you use your mouth instead of your brains. That does not serve you well and certainly does not serve the cause of the Conservative movement.

Ms. Cornell, you have it half right. God is Love, and Justice. As I mentioned in many a past post, there is a lot of “lamenting and gnashing of teeth” in the Bible. What of that? If Jesus will save all of us, then why is the man bound and put out of the feast for not wearing his wedding garment (Mattew 22:14). Or what of the cockle that is allowed to grow, then gathered and burned (Matthew 13). Not all who are called will be chosen, and some will think they are doing the Lord’s work. Do any of us know we are truly on the right path? No, we all need mercy, even the greatest of us is a worthless sinner in the eyes of God without repentance and true contrition. Jesus does not say the cockle may have another use, lets keep it, or grow it somewhere else. It is burned. Decisive, no question. If abortion is a choice we are able to make in His eyes, why is it so noxious even to those that support that choice? Because you know, deep down somewhere, that it is wrong. The idea of a choice is false. You know right and wrong, that is good. But by your own admission you will compromise that for convenience.

And Kevin, of course I take my position from my experiences. So do you, and everyone else. The debate is about specific interpretation of the Bible to certain people. That interpretation is what I want to talk about, and is the exact thing Ms. Cornell is avoiding. She continues to tell me to read a certain part or chapter, but does not tell me how she reads it. I have read the Book, as stated, many times. I am familiar with it. I see nothing in there that supports her views and have given specifics, such as those above as to why I come to the conclusions I do. When I challenge her, she changes the subject. She is less open minded than anyone else here, and she can not see that.

And I did feel attacked by her before. I quote scripture, the same she says she reads, and she says I have never said anything that has to do with His words. She continually says people like me are un-Christian, and Nazi’s. She may think she is being funny but those are attacks. I have not found anything she has said here to be funny, I sincerely hope her comedy act is better than this.

Thank you Freedom Fan, I really appreciate you aksing Ann to take my personal info off her site.

As a follower and student of Christ, and a Christian in the purest sense of the word (meaning I go by Christ's words) --- other labels mean nothing to me. The best book I've ever read is "The Sermon on the Mount" by the beloved English minister, Emmet Fox. It clarifies all the confusing things Christ talks about --- with actual solutions to all our problems in life, the way Christ intended. Prayer (not begging God, but knowing and expecting good --- is the most powerful tool in the universe --- if only we had faith in it.) But all our doubts and judgment of others --- actually arrest or stop God's work through us. When we pray the right way --- by first seeing our part in a conflict, our own flaws --- then we see our fellow man in the right way: as flawed but lovable. Sometimes we are blinded by pride or selfishness... or moral superiority --- which is not our job. This kind of prayer lifts us up, and inspires others --- and a radical change in character happens --- true humility and compassion for our fellow suffering humans.

Watching this administration, unfortunately I see a lot of corruption, wealthy corporate CEOs taking huge bonues, while eliminating thousands of jobs, home prices soaring, tax cuts for the wealthiest, pharmaceutical firms pushing drugs on us and creating a demand for ADD medication for 6-year-olds (or spraying allergens into the air to create a demand for "Claritin" - this is a joke in a movie I wrote.) Maybe I shouldn't call myself by any political party name. But I am for socialized medicine, higher salaries for police, teachers and soldiers --- and better after-school programs. I want to take care of our own people here in America. Is that liberal or libertarian? I just can't believe Michael Eisner got a bonus one year of 200 million dollars and said Disney couldn't afford to cut ticket prices at Disneyland for two days a year on "Handicapped Days". Or something like that. Anyway, as seen in Katrina --- we cannot store up treasures on earth. Love and helping our fellow man is all that really counts.

All who say they are Christians that practice their faith in some way think they are the true followers of Christ as He intended. Otherwise, they would no be practicing what they are. My question stands, what do YOU read in the verses I mentioned? It is an honest question. I am only looking for an honest answer.

FreedomFan: However, unlike Babs Boxer, Teddy Kennedy, and other uber Liberals, I do have a problem allowing doctors to kill babies in the course of third trimester deliveries (aka partial birth abortion).

I've heard a lot of talk about how bloodthirsty Evil Liberals just drool at the thought of killing a late-term fetus. Or that are there throngs of very pregnant Evil Liberal women clamoring for them. If anyone actually believes that, lemme tell you: it ain't so. I know it's easier to argue if you mischaracterize your opponent, but having heard a fair bit of the debate on the late-term abortion issue, I have yet to hear anyone say that these procedures are either wonderful or of little importance. What I have heard is that they are extremely rare, and are as far as I know only done in cases of medical urgency, and not as a method of birth control.

The problem opponents have with the recent law outlawing late-term abortions is that it has no provision for allowing a doctor to use his/her medical judgement on the issue of medical necessity. So you (if you're female) or your wife/sister/daughter might be legally prohibited from receiving medical care that would protect your/her health. Decisions in these situations are not easy, and are not made easier or more correct by ham-handed know-it-all laws.

Let me pose a counter-question. A lot of concern has been expressed, here and elsewhere, for what is called either a fetus or an unborn child. This entity is seen as a pristine, innocent being to be protected even at the expense of the woman carrying it. Where does all this concern go after the birth event? Where are all the theocrats when it comes to infant health care (or even prenatal health care)? Who among them is on a rampage to provide proper nutrition for all of this country's children, or schools with functioning heating and toilets, or even, dare I say, schoolbooks? Are any of them willing to tell their political representatives that it is offensive to cut benefits for this country's children in order to cut taxes for this country's millionaires?

If the issue really is concern for the young and vulnerable, we might have some common ground here.

Big K - To me both the scriptures you sited (Matthew 13 and 22:14 --- separating the wheat from the weeds, and the bridesgroom who was thrown out of the wedding feast for not wearing the clothes of righteousness [many are called but few are chosen]) means that these people were not spiritually fit, not loving toward their enemies, not "Christ-like" in their compassion. Those who do not fill their hearts with love for their fellow man --- those who act as the Pharisees did --- will not enter the kingdom. Just before that he says "the prostitutes and tax collectors" will enter the kingdom of heaven before you (pharisees.)" It is the exact OPPOSITE of what many Pat Robertson-rapture-seeking right-wing fanatics believe today. They believe they will be saved while the rest of God's children will be thrown into hell. The mere fact that they are thinking about their own salvation is a sign they are not ready for it. It is the meek who shall inherit....

Here's the most obvious example I can come up with: Do you honestly believe Ghandi, a man who actually lived exactly as Christ wanted us to, who nourished the poor, couldn't be bought, resisted war against all odds --- do you believe he is in hell simply because he didn't technically state "Jesus is my savior"? He was Hindi, but full of love and peace. That's what Christ meant when he said "None comes to the Father except by me" and "by your fruits you shall know them". It's love: LOVE is the way to the Father.

Do you bring peace and tender loving care to your enemies? It's hard to do this, but Christ said there is no value in returning love for love, even criminals do that; you must return love for hate. (And love the unlovable people.) Most Christians think they are saved by grace, but this is not what Christ meant when he said you you don't have to earn salvation. None of us have to earn our birthright. But we do have to learn to love each other as God loves all his children, even the Pharisees. When they wake up and see the error of their ways, they too will be fit and clothed in righteousness. There is a spiritual key to the Bible.

To me, all Christ's teaching is about the sins of intolerance and hatred. These need to be cut out of the new man with the sword, which is spiritual and separates hate from love.

The new premillenialists or right-wing Christian religious fanatics believe they will be saved simply because they state they "believe" Jesus as their savior (while not walking in his footsteps of loving those they disdain and turning the other cheek to the people who offend them: homosexuals, lepers, prostitutes, the homeless, the "liberals")

Read Matthew 23 and tell me what you think it means. Who are the pharisees in todays world? How many in the Bush administration or in Congress have kids fighting in Iraq? No, they send everyone elses' kids but not their own.

Why are so many of you obsessed with abortion; that's all you ever talk about --- and yet condone an illegal war in which thousands of children are dying? Why do you not condemn an administration that has no interest in saving our environment?

You keep saying I called you names and I call you un-Christian and a Nazi. I have never called you or conservatives anything of the sort. You are projecting onto me your own stuff. It is hate-speakers and bigots and religious fanatics that are dividing this country. Your mischaracterization is very strange. Only once did I say you seemed full of anger and hateful rhetoric, and I'm sorry but your tone generally feels like you are attacking and on the offensive. But you have called me "certifiable" and implied I should be wearing a strait-jacket or be in a mental institution. Nice words, thank you.

Let's agree to disagree about Christianity. I come from a different place than you that's all. Love & Peace xoxo

P.S. It is Steve F. who attacks me even on my own website --- yet I never censor him. Interesting that Ann Coulter doesn't allow comments on her website. We can all learn from each other as long as its not abusive.

Ms. Cornell, actually Ann Coulter does allow comments on her web site; so far users have posted over 250,000 times. So that might be a good place for you to confront her and her minions about removing your personal information. Also, if you are as open-minded as Brad is about allowing dissenting opinion, perhaps I will attempt posting on your blog and see how long I last. (Isn't listening to opposing viewpoints more fun than those Liberal echo chambers like DemocraticUnderground?)

If you think Jesus tossed out the Old Testament, then why is it still a part of the Bible? Other than repudiating the "eye-for-an-eye" thang, can you find anywhere where Jesus said the equivalent of "oh just forget about all those silly Jewish laws you were following before I arrived?" If you think the Ten Commandments are obsolete, I'm pretty sure you're the only Christian who does.

As has been stated by many on this thread, support for just war appears many times in the Bible. All your prayers and all the love in your heart, by itself, will not stop a determined monster from killing innocent people. Anyone who would oppose physically stopping Hitler in WWII or the Taliban after 9/11 for "moral reasons" is operating with a broken moral compass, in my humble opinion.

As far as the war being "illegal", I suppose you mean that war was never "declared" by Congress as required by the Constitution. The last time war was actually declared was on December 8, 1941--WWII. Since that time, war waged by both Democrat and Republican administrations have been launched by the executive branch as legitmate "policing actions". The check on executive power is that Congress must authorize funding for the war as it does for everything else. Was the Korean War illegal? Vietnam? Panama? Gulf I? Mogadishu? Kosovo? Barbary Pirates? Officially declaring war has always been a formality; this war is no different from all the others in that regard. So the "illegal" war canard will only work on folks who don't know any better--spare me.

Everyone wants the war to end. But leaving Iraq before it is stable would be a disaster both for Iraqis and for the credibility of the U.S. Even the Democrats in Congress (except for three) understand this.

Disgusting traitors like George Galloway and Jane Fonda are actively rooting for our enemies to succeed. In an attempt to scare away Iraqi voters right before their very first election, Teddy Kennedy demanded that the U.S. withdraw its forces. I submit that regardless of how they may have felt about our invasion, patriotic Americans do not want to see us fail in Iraq. Moral people do not relish the thought of the carnage that undoubtedly would be visited upon the Iraqi people if we leave before they want us to.

My understanding is that indeed there are exceptions to allow late term abortions in cases in which the mother’s life is in danger. Also, please provide just one name of a Conservative (or anyone else) who favors sacrificing the life of a mother in favor of her unborn child. My understanding is that abortions necessary to save the life of the mother are exceedingly rare. How many mothers, giddily excited about the birth of their babies, end up with an abortion to preserve their own health? Have you ever met one? Ever heard of Caesarian section? Get real, this is a transparent Liberal diversion erected in attempt to confuse the issue. If you maintain that I am misinformed, please provide credible links to substantiate your arguments.

Similarly, the straw man about Conservatives not caring about children after they are born, is again simply bogus. Obviously everyone cares about children and mothers and apple pie. This is merely a transparent attempt by Liberals to divert attention from the fact that folks like NARAL are promoting something so awful that even staunch Liberals like Ms. Cornell will reluctantly agree it is sinful.

Infants must receive adequate health care. It is unlawful for a hospital to refuse to provide emergency health care for anyone.

Providing proper nutrition for children is the responsibility of their parents; it is not a legitimate function for government (although we do it anyway as in the school lunch program). This is not supposed to be a nanny state; we assume that parents are responsible adults. However, if a child’s parents cannot feed, clothe and otherwise properly care for a child, the child must be put into a foster home or adopted. Such situations are extremely rare except when parents are abusive or drug-addicted. Please provide just one example of a child, malnourished as a result of poverty alone, whom you have discovered in the U.S. On the contrary, children in the U.S. have an obesity problem, as do their parents. Teachers are trained to identify children who are not receiving proper care at home, so it’s not as if malnourished children could be hidden somehow.

Please provide an example of when educational “benefits for this country's children” have ever been cut. Budget for education only increases, it never decreases—the same as all government spending does. Both federal and most state government spending are out of control, creating massive federal deficits and driving states like California nearly into bankruptcy. Dubya tried to make sure he would not be criticized by Liberals for cutting domestic spending, so he has never vetoed any spending measure. Naturally both Republican and Democrat politicians can’t seem to spend money fast enough, but Liberals like you still manage to keep screaming for more. If you bleeding hearts maintain that you are so concerned about the “children” perhaps you will consider the crushing burden of debt with which we are saddling them for the rest of their lives.

Now maybe you will be brave enough to return the courtesy and answer my question without some further goofy diversion:

"When did your life begin? At what moment do you think all genetic information is in place to create a human life? Does God [or your secular humanist equivalent] consider it a sin to intentionally snuff out innocent human life?"

In reference to the un-Christian stuff I was talking about, here are your comments,

“I’ve been bewildered to the point of jaw-gnashing agony at how certain fundamentalists can call themselves Christian”

“These right-wing "Christians" are engaged in the most dangerous perversion of Christianity I've ever seen!”

“I am ashamed of what fanatical right-wing so-called "Christians" have done to pervert the most beautiful religion in the world.”

I am a fundamentalist, right wing Christian. You may have been talking about the administration or Ann Coulter, but the generalizations refer to people like me. People who go to work, and do the best they can to provide and make peace with their God. You never said “hey Big K, your not Christian,” but I felt it was directed at me along with them. An example as to why I felt that way,

“There is not one thing either of you [meaning me] have said that has anything to do with Christ”

My tone may be more on the offensive, but I felt yours no less so. From your first post I felt a need to defend positions that I hold, for here you are telling people that you feel a country without legal abortion (which I would support if it were to come to a vote) would be a Nazi state.

To answer your question about Ghandi. I have no idea the status of his soul, and cannot say he is in heaven or hell. I would hope he is in a good place, as all Christians with charity should, but that judgment is reserved for God.

Why do we tend to stay on the topic of abortion? You brought it up in your original post. Honestly, my big soap box is gun rights. I am an activist in favor of the Second Amendment and contact my representatives probably 10 to 1 in favor of that versus any other social issue. I was merely trying to stay on the topics originally put forth by you in the first post.

Why do we not condemn the administration? Complex question, I will try to be concise. First, many of us were displeased with the first Bush in that he did not finish the job. Then Clinton let Sadam get away with murder (literally) for 8 years and did nothing. The UN just sat and took money (of course no one knew that at the time, but they were at least sitting on their hands) while the terms for peace were not kept. You say Sadam did nothing to us. I disagree, we sent our troops over there to fight 10 years ago, and their sacrifice must be honored. If the terms for peace are not met in good faith, then the original conflict is not finished, and years of not allowing inspectors in the country along with uncertainty about his intentions and capabilities led people to believe it was time to close that book long before Clinton left office. Personally, I would have made the president outline more of Sadam’s transgressions against the peace accords during the preparations to war before giving him authority. Your representatives in Congress failed that duty, as well as the president. But those facts remain; Sadam was thumbing his nose at us, stealing our tax dollars that were sent as aid for his people, and terrorizing Iraqi’s. BTW, I am sure you remember hearing about Sadam gassing Kurds. Kurds are Christians. Somehow that fact gets forgotten when that story is related.

My comment about the straight jacket. An apology to you is in order if you took that literally. I felt that argument you made was weak, still do. As much as you may hate people using Christianity to further causes you feel are diametrically opposed to that faith, I find it hard to believe you would not think that others would have just as strong feelings against causes they feel are just as opposed. Abortion is just such a cause, and hearing someone, to use your phrase, pervert Christianity, to say abortion is in any way acceptable even as a choice for someone else boils my blood like nothing ever could. I know you do not agree with abortion, but to me and most people of my persuasion giving the choice is tantamount to condoning the action. We see no distinction, you are either against such a ghastly practice, or not.

Do I provide aid to my enemies? I pray for them. I even prayed for you this morning (though I do not consider you an enemy in any sense). I give money to charity, my wife and I will be volunteering at a soup kitchen next week. I made some meaningful dialogue with 2 people here for a time (Autarkis and M4) and attempt to provide hospitality to anyone that comes to my door. I could go on, but I think I have written enough for now.

Hopefully this dialogue at least furthers understanding between us, which is my cause. You may not agree with me, but at least understand, and I will try to do the same.

I misspoke as to a detail. The issue was that there is no exception in the current law for the health of the mother, just her life. Naturally I have heard of Caesarian section, and so have the doctors who apparently believe this law to be intolerably restrictive of their ability to practice.

You ask, "How many mothers, giddily excited about the birth of their babies, end up with an abortion to preserve their own health? Have you ever met one?" Obviously I have no idea, so I presume this is a rhetorical question, but even so, what are you trying to say? That you don't find it credible that any serious health issues might suddenly present themselves late in a pregnancy? I suppose I might ask in response how many women intending to have an abortion for family-planning reasons you think wait until the third trimester to actually do it.

As for this being a "transparent Liberal diversion," no it isn't, nyah, nyah, nyah.

Similarly, the straw man about Conservatives not caring about children after they are born, is again simply bogus. Obviously everyone cares about children and mothers and apple pie. This is merely a transparent attempt by Liberals to divert attention from the fact that folks like NARAL are promoting something so awful that even staunch Liberals like Ms. Cornell will reluctantly agree it is sinful.

I notice that you make no attempt at all to answer the question, and then attempt a proof by reiteration. If the law and its significance were as you mischaracterize them, you might be right about the awfulness, but they're not, as I've explained.

Providing proper nutrition for children is the responsibility of their parents; it is not a legitimate function for government (although we do it anyway as in the school lunch program).

Oh, better living through legalistic dodges. There are a lot of parents in this country who are unable to discharge this responsibility adequately. But this you wash your hands of. It's the parents' responsibility and if they can't handle it, it's not your problem. Great, I'm sure the hungry children feel much better knowing it's not your fault. As for school lunches being related to "adequate nutrition," I went to public school, and I know better.

This is not supposed to be a nanny state; we assume that parents are responsible adults. However, if a child's parents cannot feed, clothe and otherwise properly care for a child, the child must be put into a foster home or adopted. Such situations are extremely rare except when parents are abusive or drug-addicted. Please provide just one example of a child, malnourished as a result of poverty alone, whom you have discovered in the U.S. On the contrary, children in the U.S. have an obesity problem, as do their parents. Teachers are trained to identify children who are not receiving proper care at home, so it's not as if malnourished children could be hidden somehow.

Must be great up there on cloud nine. Teachers are not doctors or social workers, and they have a whole full-time job to do already. Is this the one area of life in which you believe government workers can perform miracles? Or at least that they are extremely competent? As for foster care programs, they are atrociously understaffed, which might just have to do with a lack of market-clearing compensation, eh? And your answer to adult impoverishment is to snatch their kids? With friends like you, who needs Evil Liberals? Oh, and obesity and malnutrition are quite compatible.

Please provide an example of when educational "benefits for this country's children" have ever been cut. Budget for education only increases, it never decreases--the same as all government spending does.

Oh come on. Somebody get this man some figures. One thing after another has been cut by this administration, usually within a week after a photo op where W has talked about how wonderful the program is. It's become so routine I just roll my eyes and say, "Yup, there he goes again." And as long as population is increasing and inflation is nonzero, preventing a program's funding from increasing to match these factors is a de facto cut from the point of view of anyone administering or benefiting from the program. Nice try.

Both federal and most state government spending are out of control, creating massive federal deficits and driving states like California nearly into bankruptcy.

Republican legislators refused to raise taxes when the dot-com bust caused the state's revenues to crash, but the R's in the CA legislature stuck to ideology rather than reason. And when I say reason, I don't mean the Barabara Streisand liberal-agenda blastfax, I mean that financial professionals said taxes needed to be increased to adjust for this. It's like trying to save fuel by refusing to turn on the ship's engines when the current is now pushing you onto the rocks.

Naturally both Republican and Democrat politicians can't seem to spend money fast enough, but Liberals like you still manage to keep screaming for more. If you bleeding hearts maintain that you are so concerned about the "children" perhaps you will consider the crushing burden of debt with which we are saddling them for the rest of their lives.

You really can't blame Democrats for anything in DC except being too feeble to stand up to the insanity of the current crop of Republican maniacs. The major financial problems this country has right now are the war and the tax cuts for the rich. Remember when this war was going to pay for itself? Any clue where that nine billion dollars of unaccounted-for reconstruction money (cash!!) went? You asked for examples earlier. Can you cite an historical example of a country that cut taxes while fighting a war? Tax-and-spend is the usual accusation against liberals. Even if that were true, the current crowd's policy of borrow-and-spend would be as Argentina to the liberals' Britain.

Now maybe you will be brave enough to return the courtesy and answer my question without some further goofy diversion:

1. If only an insulting manner made up for ignorance and weak logic, but alas.

2. Return what courtesy?

3. OK, I'll try to gather my courage lest you shame me some more:

"When did your life begin? At what moment do you think all genetic information is in place to create a human life? Does God [or your secular humanist equivalent] consider it a sin to intentionally snuff out innocent human life?"

You know, the reason nobody wants to answer your questions isn't that they are so brilliant and vexing but because it's a hard to take the sequence seriously when we lurch from Elementary School Philosophy to High School Sophomore Biology to Sunday School. And the snooty tone seems misplaced. But if you insist...

1. My life has, in some senses, begun many times. In others, it is beginningless and endless. What was your face before you were born? Five pounds of flax.

2. This question isn't really a question, because at a first approximation everyone pretty much accepts that the zygote contains the merged genes of the parents. This may or may not be true, but it's what is currently accepted.

3. I find the mixture of poetics and legalism to be toxic. But most people try avoid killing the innocent. I note that our current Resident seems less concerned about this than I would be.

For your reference, here are some previous liberal opinions on abortion:

1) Even talking about abortion is wrong; don't you realize the soul lives on regardless? So it doesn't really matter. Peace, love, kisses.

2) Well abortion may be wrong and we try to avoid it, but it doesn't really matter. There are more important things to worry about like implementing socialism to feed America's teeming millions of obese albeit malnourished kids (and also defeating any federal judge candidate who might possibly be pro-life).

So perhaps you're correct: Liberals are not amoral after all. Maybe you would like to choose one of the above. Or feel free to be creative and try to change the question.

... most people try avoid killing the innocent. I note that our current Resident seems less concerned about this than I would be....
-Fingal

That's it? That's your answer? Your callous, flippant tone on such a serious topic is frightening. Every time I talk to a liberal I'm more convinced than ever that most are morally bankrupt.

Your bracketed summary is incorrect. I was not responding to the question, "Is abortion wrong?" I was responding to three other questions which for me do not add up to the one you now pose. If you want to claim a connection between those three answers and the abortion issue, go ahead and make the case; don't expect me to make your argument for you.

There are obese kids. There are malnourished kids. To some degree these categories overlap, because when your resources are severely limited you eat cheap stuff which can make you fat, but still leave you short of nutrition. So you eat more of the cheap stuff, because you are never satisfied.

There are also malnourished kids who are not fat. The obesity epidemic is largely among the middle and upper classes who have been induced to feed their kids supersized fast foods, and are affluent enough to keep doing it.

People physically wrote the words on paper and later assembled the smaller books into one called the Bible. So, your assessment is correct as far as that goes. The books that are listed in the Bible were arranged by scholars over the centuries to be the ones of most relevance, and all are considered inspired by God (that process I will not go into, since it is lengthy, but not secret. Look it up if you are curious). There may be more inspired books than collected in the Bible, for instance the Book of Enoch is not listed in the Old Testament, but is quoted by Christ. To make matters worse, there are various translations (the Douay-Rheims, various King James, and New American are some examples). To go even further some of the different versions omit certain books ( look for Tobias in your KJ versions and you will not find it). And on top of all that, people have different interpretations of the Bible. Ms. Cornell seams to think the Old Testament is of little value, others disagree. A broader case in point, there are 33000 different Protestant denominations in the US and counting, all with their own ideas on what is meant.

So, if you are not going to believe the Bible, there are some great reasons. Personally, I find life without some kind of faith to be bleak. That means there is no justice for wrongs committed, no reward for a pious life. It means you should enjoy what you can because after this, you will cease. And after humankind figures out a way to kill itself off entirely the whole thing will have been for nothing. If you would rather believe that instead of the Bible, go ahead. A lot of people get counselors over that, though.

Most of my secular associates have great misconceptions about Christianity and the Bible. On the topic of the scriptures our Old Testament has been established and used by Judiasm for thousands of years. As for the New Testament archeological finds have noted that most of what we consider to be the cannon of NT scripture has been collected and used by the early church at Ephesus. The Bible is no conspiracy, and shouldn't be treated as one. That evil men came up with this idea of Christianity and wrote the rules of it out to control people. I also always here about contradictions in the scriptures. Yet when I ask people about what contradictions they are talking about, they remain dumbfounded. "Well they're there, I know they are." The FACT that there are no MAJOR DOCTRINAL errors concerning the OT and the NT , 56 ( I believe) writers in all, is a testament to its credibility.

On the ideas of Christ as the ultimate peace-maker:

Read the NT. Does Christ speak more on punishment and hell or on reward and heaven? I am not saying that if Jesus were to descend with a shout that he would approve this awful war in Iraq, but what I am saying is that in the book of Revelation Christ is pictured as a mighty warrior coming to rescue, not the Christians, but His people the Jewish people. Christ however does descend with a shout and the voice of the Archangel (Thess.) to redeem the Christians, but this all happens before the Tribulaion. Also, Armegeddon is not (endgame), but a location where a battle will take place. There is nothing in Revelation that says that Christians or mankind can produce the Tribulation or even Christ's return for them. Just remember that the story of Christ's return as a warrior (with the saints mind you, and not the commonly misunderstood catholic ones either) is one of God's redemptive love for the Jewish people who will be persecuted and driven into the wilderness by the whole of the world. 144,000 that revelation speaks of is 144,000 sactified (set aside) Jewish men who will lead the nation in their time of tribulation.

The idea that God is complete love is a true statement, but the idea that God is just, and mankind owes a sin debt to God is also true. And when it comes to war lets remember that we make this mess ourselves. It's our fault we are in this mess, not God's.

Repubilican, Democrat. Quite frankly I don't care. Every politician has an agenda, and many politicians are willing to deceive to get what they want. I don't trust a one of them, but I do think that if politicians were allowed to think for themselves without an entire committee behind them analyzing everything they said that we would have a better government. Politicians should be allowed to speak their mind and screw up. That way we could know what they are really after, and that way they could learn from their mistakes, and thus become better people and better politicians, but the media has so skewed everything that is out there, that I don't think this sort of a world is even a possibility. The media has backed our politicians into a corner, and stolen our right to a proper nation. Greed funds the politicians. Greed funds the media. It's a sick world. We need politicians with integrity that arn't afraid to say what they want to do, and what they believe. In a world where (like him or not) Pres. Bush is barely allowed to be a Christian how can we expect him to run the country right or anyone else for that matter? 'Good Night and Good Luck" should be a wake up call to the media, but they are so engrossed with their own schemes and motives I'm not sure truthful reporting even exists anymore.

... most people try avoid killing the innocent. I note that our current Resident seems less concerned about this than I would be....
-Fingal

That's it? That's your answer? Your callous, flippant tone on such a serious topic is frightening. Every time I talk to a liberal I'm more convinced than ever that most are morally bankrupt.

Good luck with that election thang in a couple more years. Maybe your buddy Hillary will win and turn the U.S. into a socialist utopia so the state can take over health care and the rest of private industry in order to properly care for all the “malnourished children” hiding in the U.S.

Dude, you’re obviously a very smart, albeit condescending guy—a self-anointed liberal elite preaching to us benighted country folk. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that there is virtually no correlation between intelligence and wisdom or integrity.

Needless to say, I'm not in the mood for playing games. I don't think anything I would say would get your stamp of approval, and to be honest I don't care. Likewise my opinion probably isn't that important to you. So instead of jumping to conclusions, I'll just point out what I noticed and you can draw your own conclusions.

1. You referred to Fingal as being condescending and flipant. (which may or may not be true)
2. You have drawn a lot of crazy conclusions about liberal people, for instance, saying that they are "either dishonest, insane, intellectually lazy, or some combination".

I'm just asking you to consider both of those concepts and then consider whether or not there is a bit of hypocrisy involved. You don't even need to post about it again. Just think about it for your own self.

#339 Big K. Thank you.....33,000 different interpretations (paraphrasing here). You only speak of Protestants. I believe Catholics also call themselves Christians, am I wrong? They derive their knowledge as interpreted by the Pope. I know during a time, the comman people were not even allowed to have a bible as the Pope was considered the only link to God and the people were to accept the Pope's teaching... enter Luther.

My search led to many of the teachings (books) that did not make it into the bible, Enoch as you mentioned, being one of my favorites. The Dead Sea Scrolls (all the controversy surrounding the interpretation of them....the monopoly of the few that had access to them....the access to the manuscripts finally 'outed' by a University in Ca. that thought the scrolls should be available to all).
The Nag Hammadi Library discovered in 1945 which has not gotten as much attention at the Dead Sea Scrolls. These and many more are being translated subjectively. Which translation are we to believe to be correct.

I do not believe we just happened to have arrived here one day by accident. I believe we are part of a plan so big we cannot even begin to grasp it, our consciousness is incapable of understanding the dynamics underlying All That Is. How easy it would be for me to go to my neighborhood church and have the pastor explain it all to me so I don't need to do any of the work. I just am not like that. I must seek answers to my questions and the church did not have the answers I was seeking. I went to other sources and a new world view emerged to me.

Need to give my computer up to my son now, so will end, when I have only just begun...probably just as well. M4

I only mention Protestants because they are the largest (in terms of diversity, not raw numbers) out there. Catholics would only add one more group, and there are a few Eastern Orthodox churches and a couple of others I can not remember. But add those up and they will not change that 33000 estimate much, so I was trying to estimate but be factual in my approximation. We really do not know how many are out there.

And no, the pope was not the only source of information, ever. Before the Bible was printed and translated it was inaccessible since only the most educated could get a copy of it, and could read the Hebrew and Greek texts. Monks had to painstakingly copy every letter by hand (if you get a chance, try to get a look at those old copies, they are absolutely gorgeous for their artistry), so their numbers were limited even if you could read them.

Pardon the pun, but the Church has always been an open book on Her doctrine. She wants to appeal to intellectuals, and has in the past had some of the greatest minds in Her midst (hence one of my posts earlier mentions that). Looking at some of the older Saints and their writings you get a sense of what the Church has always taught.

As for Luther, he took issue with some of the Church teaching. Lax clergy, scandals, and the popes being obsessed with issues outside of their borders contributed to his angst, which the Church long ago conceded as valid points. Most notably he was upset that priests could not marry. This was of specific importance to him because he knocked up a nun. At the risk of peeving a few Lutherans here, I always thought if the Reformation happened today Luther would be another scandal in the Church, not a new religion. But hey. What do I know?

Merifour --- I've written you before to say I am so grateful for you and the other souls on this blog who see the real picture and are humble enough to keep seeking enlightenment (no matter how much we learn, it's never over!)

Love, (God) is the fabric we are made of; God is within all of us --- we are all part of each other, all connected and our nature is Divine.

Fingal and Jaxebad --- Thank you for your wise words.

Freedom Fan: There's a great quote by William James in "Varieties of Religious Experience": To paraphrase: "Nothing will keep a man in everlasting ignorance as much as contempt prior to investigation."

Big K, I would love to see the copies of the old manuscripts. I have many books which may contain some of them, will have to do some looking. Thanks for your info.

Lydia, the book you mention sounds so familiar, I thought I had it, but may have passed in on. I did come across "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard Bucke, in my library. It was first published in 1901. A very informative book.

Yes, I am a student, however I believe we are all students and all teachers. This is why I think it is important for me to listen when others speak, for my God works in mysterious ways and I never know when or who I will receive my next lesson from. M4

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
-Herbert Spencer

Indeed this is a perfect quote to use when someone quickly embraces some lame conspiracy theory, with no evidence whatsoever, just because it meshes with his warped world view. For example, most of the French and Middle Eastern folks and Cynthia McKinney believe our 9/11 attack was executed by Dubya or the Jews, not because of any shred of evidence, but because of contempt so white hot that it blinds them from any rational thought.

By directing this quote toward me, you are undoubtedly suggesting that I have contempt for Liberal folks. Many of my family, friends, fellow band members and co-workers are Liberals. Most are fine folks; we remain friends because we don't discuss politics or religion. But if you mean that I have contempt for the Liberal world view, then you're quite correct.

I believe the United States and western civilization represent one of the most prosperous, life-affirming and inspiring cultural phenomena which has ever occurred in the history of the world. However, many Liberals show nothing but scorn for the things which made America great: The wisdom and courage of our founding fathers in establishing the U.S. and its Constitution, respect for human dignity and human rights, unprecedented economic and personal freedom, equal of opportunity for all races and genders, freedom of religious expression, the beauty of our rich religious traditions, freedom of speech, and the courage of our military men and women who selflessly provided eternal vigilance in defense of these freedoms over the years.

Therefore those seeking fundamental change of our great western institutions bear the burden of proving that they are offer something better than what has worked so well for so long. Obviously nothing is perfect and everyone wants change where necessary. But criticism comes in two flavors: Constructive and destructive: One comes from those who are proud of our country and its collective achievements; this gentle criticism is based in love and offers the promise of further incremental improvement. The latter comes from ungrateful, narcissistic, envious, self-made victims, arrogant elitists, traitors, secular humanists, and malcontents who appear to welcome the rapid demise of a magnificent civilization. They will fail.

You say you want to bridge the chasm between Liberals and Conservatives. While I admire your cordial and classy style, I wonder if your goal is achievable or even desirable. The tempest we have in this tiny cyber microcosm illustrates the vigorous battle for the hearts and minds of the middle--the apolitical independent folks who don't know what to believe until right before an election.

I believe Conservatives have values more in common with the middle than Liberals. I believe that the prosperity unleashed by the remarkable engine of free enterprise will prevail. I believe in the wisdom and basic goodness of common people. I believe people are happiest when they have the freedom to achieve their dreams unfettered by big government, confiscatory taxation, oppressive regulation and threat of frivolous lawsuits. I believe that each family is a building block of society; strengthening the traditional family unit is vital to the long term survival of society and its values. I honor the sincere beliefs of decent religious folks. I believe all countries will eventually enjoy safety from terrorism, oppression and tyranny advanced by the cult of death which masquerades as the religion of peace while it is coddled by multi-culturist tools and appeasers. I believe democracy and liberty will spread around the globe as a result of the blood, sweat, and tears of courageous Americans, Britons, Australians and their allies. I believe our proud civilization will survive in its present form for many generations after those present have returned to dust. Ultimately, I believe we will win.

Very well put. I certainly respect your worldview, and hope that it serves you as well as you need it to. If it makes you happy, more power to you.

FreedomFan,

It seems to be that the old system [i]hasn't[/i] been working, because, even 2000 years after Jesus imparted that message to us-- or, heck, even Buddha or Krishna had long since passed along their message to us --we're still killing each other and, on many levels, playing favorites in a system that shouldn't have any distinction of 'better' or 'worse' to begin with. I'm sure that this is where many of the people you call contemptable validate [i]their[/i] worldview-- because to them, this isn't signs that things are working, and therefore, maybe it's time to try something else.

If I might be suddenly crude, this is possibly the single most elitist, cruel and self-centric thing I have heard from you thus far. Are you saying that people who embrace a culture of secular humanism (and thus, all Buddhists, Neopagans, a good chunk of Hindus and billions of atheists and agnostics) are somehow morally bankrupt or ethically void? How can you possibly make such a statement? What proof do you have but that which is in your very limited realm of experience-- and even then, disagreements should not produce generalizations. Because someone holds a different worldview than yours doesn't make you somehow 'better' and them somehow 'bankrupt' of the morals that [i]you[/i] believe to be necessary. That statement seems so wide and blanketing and-- I can't wrap my mind around such despicable display of rampant ignorance.

Why? Why do you hate people who disagree with you? Do you think that you're right? That you're an envoy of a higher authority? Perhaps we all are, but I don't think that is any reason (or place) for you to devalue the life and values of [i]any[/i] human being. That is the ugliest side of society, and you exemplify this so neatly it frightens me.

...It seems to be that the old system [i]hasn't[/i] been working...
-Kevin

Please identify your ideal real-life society. Just pick one of the many countries which has clearly demonstrated in the real world that it has ideas superior to Western culture. Enumerate the all ways it is superior. (Note use angle brackets not square brackets for HTML tags; use blockquote tag to offset quotes; use preview feature before posting.)

...Why? Why do you hate people who disagree with you? Do you think that you're right? That you're an envoy of a higher authority?...
-Kevin

Answers: I don't, yes, and no respectively. I am searching for truth, but I don’t claim to know anything for certain. But I have contempt for folks who intentionally try to obfuscate or avoid pursuing truth, or are so intellectually lazy that they allow conflicting thoughts to wallow in their skulls forever, or believe something just so they can be members of some club or group.

I don't have any problem with Buddists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Agnostics like Unitarians, Sufis, etc. As I stated, I honor the sincere beliefs of decent religious folks. By secular humanism, I'm refering to folks like those at the ACLU who persecute all people of (western) faith, the Boy Scouts, any evidence or display of religion, and all that is decent and good in our culture. And yes my contempt for the ACLU *spit* is pretty close to hatred.

But I welcome the opinions of people who disagree with me, because I always learn something. Sometimes what I learn is how to better articulate my thoughts. Right now I would welcome the arguments from someone trying to defend the despicable actions of the ACLU.

Thanks for the tag help. I was doing something on another forum earlier, and I guess I thought it transferred over. Never thought to hit preview-- much less noticed the button existed. Thanks a lot, again.

Now, on to your points.

I really don't think anyone's got it quite right, yet-- and certainly there are no ideas that are superior to any other. To me, there are only ideas that work, and ideas that do not work, in getting a society to whatever place it wants to be. For instance, in a society that wants to keep complete control of the people, freedom of the press would not be a good way of going about getting there. But, in a society that wants to give people equal opportunity to voice their opinions, freedom of press would be a good way to get it there. See what I mean?

Now, since we live in a society that, at least on a constitutional level, seems to desire that its people live in peace, both nationally and internationally, and that, in some philosophical sense-- judging by the ends that pretty much all political maneuverings seem to be pushing for --- individual freedom, national freedom, safety from harm, equal opportunity to all individuals (and I don't mean by means such as the EOP, which, in my opinion, tend to exacerbate the problem) to make what they will of their lives, and the end of war and poverty and suffering through one means or another, then, no, I do not believe that our way of doing things currently works.

We still fight wars-- and some of us claiming that these acts of incredible violence are inspired by God! And there is still hunger-- and some would say that it is their lot in life, while some of the richest countries in the world have more money than they could ever need. And there is still torture, and repression, and violence against innocent people-- and this all goes on depiste our best efforts to eradicate it.

What does this speak to you? To me, it appears that, if the problem is not being solved, then the way we are trying to solve it is not working. Would you not say this of a math equation? If one formula does not yield the answer you seek, it would only be logical to retrace your steps, see where the problem had an error, and correct it-- or, perhaps, if it is a more complex problem, try another formula all together! There are so many different ways to approach a problem or any sort-- mathematical or international, political or social, religious or personal --that to continue to use the same method of solving the problem when it no longer seems to work appears highly illogical to me. Indeed, there is no one way to solve a problem, but perhaps there is a way that works better.

Take Sweden for example: their infant mortality rate is amongst the lowest in the world, and southern Greece has one of the longest average life spans in the world-- and they're both 'Western,' fully-developed countries! What does this speak to you? It does not mean that the ideas displayed by these countries are superior to our own, but if what we want to give our people is a long, healthy life and the greater chance to survive birth, in these cases, then it would be more functional to interpret and adapt the ideas displayed by these countries, because it simply works better, given what we want to be, do, or have.

Jesus was a Democrat??? Given that the major planks of the Democratic party are abortion on demand, assisted auicide, legalized dope and gay marriage, I think The Son of God may have taken issue with the leadership of the Democratic Party. I am constantly amazed by the intolerance of those who preach tolerance, the ignorance of those who preach enlightenment and the hypocracy of those who preach their own virtues. Liberals are self-serving by nature. They all feel that they owe a great debt to mankind, and have no qualms about robbing my bank account to pay it. Ann Coulter is simply an attractive, sharp-witted legal mind who uses satire and humor to point out the glaring inconsistencies between what liberals preach and what they practice. She takes no prisoners and gives no quarter to the slimeballs like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Moore and Howard Dean. Give'em Hell Ann!

Actually, John Martin, the major planks of the Democratic party are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, environmentalism, universal health care, elder's rights and women's rights.

I would not think that Jesus would be favorable toward the major planks of the Republican party, now that it has been taken over by the Religious Right --- bigotry, torture, wars based on lies, gay-bashing, elimination of the middle class and the formation of a two-class system: the ultra-rich and the very poor (who are servants of the ultra-rich), the sexual double standard, and the subjugation of women. That all of this is done in Jesus's name would be especially repugnant to him. Dubya Bush, Pat Robertson, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jerry Falwell, et al are actually far closer in spirit to the people who wanted Jesus crucified than to Jesus himself.

As for liberals robbing your bank account --- wake up! The current RIGHT-WING regime has been robbing your bank account for almost six years, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and for this needless, wasteful war in Iraq, the rationale for which shifts weekly.

Ann Coulter is a foul, shrill hatemonger (and she is not in the least attractive, unless you're into mannish-looking, horse-faced anorexics with overprocessed, stringy hair) whose idea of "humor" is sick, hypocritical, and vicious. She does not "take on" the people you identify as slimeballs. She is too cowardly for that. She insults them and then accuses them of doing what she is doing.

Oh, and your statements of "intolerance by those who preach tolerance, the ignorance of those who preach englightenment, and hypocrisy" (that's how it's spelled, not "hypocracy," as you IGNORANTLY think) "of those who preach their own virtues" actually applies to people such as Coulter and her fellow extreme right-wing apologists.

These are the ones who are trying to ram their sick, twisted version of Christianity down all our throats, under the guise of enlightenment. They whine about how they are victims of intolerance and demand that their voices be heard (although they're heard all the time), while trying to silence the voices of anyone who dissents from them. They preach virtue while not even coming close to living virtuously themselves.

Coulter does not use satire. She uses hate, insults, and polemics reeking of double standards, hypocrisy, and paranoia. She does not and in fact cannot back up 98% of her assertions. She cannot debate. All she can do is spew viler and shriller hate, while sad people such as you lap it up and cheer her on, because she voices the foulness that is in your own hearts.

The ACLU does not "persecute" people of Western faith or the Boy Scouts. It fights for the civil rights of all individuals, including bigoted hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh (it's currently defending him) as well as homosexuals who are being discriminated against by the Boy Scouts for no reason other than sheer homophobia. And I suppose you believe in that nonsensical "war on Christmas." Let's leave aside for a moment that Christmas actually derives from a pagan holiday. Nowhere have I seen any evidence that there is any war on Christmas; it exists solely in the minds of paranoid wannabe martyrs like Bill O'Reily.

You wrote, "I never mix religion with politics, but for Christ’s sake, don’t they know that Jesus was a Democrat? In fact, a bleeding heart liberal?!! "

I find it very troubling that you believe and are saying that Jesus would be a liberal. Seriously, Jesus probably wouldn't be in a political party and why would a man of great love and compassion like something like abortion?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I agree with many things you say, but I believe to call a man who preached "turning the other cheek" to be a liberal when liberals [republicans alike] are always on the defense. Jesus wouldn't write articles about how stupid the "others" are.

i find it horrible to think that you speak of Jesus as a liberal. Though you argue that you do not know a single democrat that is pro abortion it's still a interest to the democratic party and often is described as a major part of the democrats agenda.

Christianity seems to be used as rhetoric for both sides. Republicans say they are the better Christians while Democrats say they actually are Christians and Republicans are horribly far from the teachings of Christ.

By calling Jesus a Liberal that is a use of rhetoric by saying that Jesus would pick the side of a single political party. Jesus wouldn't be a part of either in my opinion, but rather would find poltics to be disgusting. If the Democratic party keeps saying the Republicans are misguided Christians who are far from the teachings of Christ. I plea for the Democrats to do the things that would honor the man Christ. If the two can mix America would be a better place.

But as a country if we continue to point fingers and say they are wrong and are horrible people Christ will not be honored. I'd like to believe God really truly bless the good ol' usa, but I see trouble in the world of politics these days.

Would Jesus like abortion? I doubt it. But I also doubt that he'd like the murder of abortion doctors and the bombing of clinics (both of which are done by so-called "Christian" conservatives), not to mention the attempts by right-wingers to restrict access to birth control and sex education, thus INCREASING the numbers of abortions. Nor do I think he'd be crazy about the decrying of a vaccine against HPV, a sexually-transmitted disease which can result in cervical cancer, on the specious grounds that it would "encourage promiscuity."

The major planks of the Republican Party are not to wantonly torture and gay bash along with other horrible things. Do you honestly think people get together and plot how to make others more oppressed and concurrently practice their evil laughs? That is ridiculous. And for liberals to continue to argue that people are so horrible based on their personal look is hilarious. Honestly, do you have anything better then she is horse faced? At least come up with something funny, so we can laugh as well. You must see your moronic argument for what it is, since Anne says many times in her books and articles that the only argument you have as a group is that Republicans are ugly, gross, stupid, smell, are Nazi’s and really, really, really, really mean.

As for Megan not using a spell checker, wow, big mistake there. That is the kind of thing that tends to characterize conservatives. They are too mean to use the spell check so that they are not helping employ some programmer somewhere and at the same time annoying the few liberals that can spell to no end. Dastardly, I know. We thought it up in our little group. *maniacal laugh inserted here*

As for Ms. Cornell, I have grown accustomed to her backing up people who call others names in a lame attempt at being intellectual as long as they call the right person those names. I only comment on her continual assertion that no one advocates abortion. But you do allow the choice, and you do not publicly speak against it or offer alternatives. You do not seam to mind that it happens, and would never tell someone that it is a bad decision. At least I say that having never read your opinion to the contrary. In some forms of Christianity, such as mine, you are guilty of a sin if you allow it by your consent or by your apathy. So, that is why people keep accusing you and your friends of advocating abortion.

I think it is safe to say Jesus would not agree with abortion. Nor would He agree with birth control. He would probably agree with the stance by most level headed conservatives that people should leave it in their pants to begin with. Thus, decreasing the need for abortion. Of course he would not agree with killing people at the clinics. Neither do the rest of us.

Ms. Cornell, I end my post by asserting that you are not interested in any common ground you do not current stand on. Your idea of tolerance is that people tolerate you, but you have no obligation to tolerate them. Interesting, don’t you think?

Oops --- I do not condone SAR or anyone calling Ann Coulter "horse-faced" or any other derogatory personal remark having to do with genetics or appearance. I do not condone maligning people on the basis of race, gender, color, body weight or heredity. I'm sorry I missed that part of SAR's comment.

Megan --- As a lifelong Christian, I didn't mean to offend anyone and I've already explained this in several above comments #149, 150, 156, and 270. But I can keep silent no longer as I observe the hatred and bigotry of the religious right.

If you do not see the comedy in my writing, then let me explain: obviously I was making fun of myself by the sentence "I never mix religion with politics, but don't they know that Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal?" I am making fun of myself for combining religion with politics, which earlier I say I never do --- so please try to get the frustration in my voice. I am a comedienne and this was a humorous article expressing my all-too-human bewilderment.

There is one thing I know --- that God is love. By liberal I mean this: compassion for the poor, for the "least among us", for the lepers, sinners, and the people who need forgiveness and mercy most of all. I never think of liberals as people who favor abortion or legalized drugs. This is a propaganda label from right wing extremists like Ann Coulter and others. They have been very successful in turning the word "liberal" into a dirty word, when in fact, it means freedom-loving, open-hearted, open-minded, progressive-thinking. NO ONE ADVOCATES ABORTION. You are wrong and misguided when you say that liberals are pro-abortion. I am a mother and would never want an abortion. But I know that the government cannot control women's bodies, or this will result in illegal, unsafe abortions --- especially for the poor, or for rape victims.

When I talk about Jesus being a bleeding heart liberal I mean this: he spent most of his time caring for the poor and the sick and the sinners --- the ones many of today's religious leaders (the Pharisees) think are too immoral or dirty to touch or allow in their churches or schools. He sat on the ground and washed the feet and the sores of the lepers --- who are today's AIDS victims. He told us to leave judgment and vengeance to God. And I admit I am being judgmental when I judge our president for lying to rush us to war. I admit I judged Bush in his slow response to Katrina. I admit I am stubborn, judgmental and sometimes obnoxiously righteous and I hate that about myself. If I've offended anyone here, I am sorry. I hope you'll forgive me. But Christ called the pharisees a "brood of vipers" and I have a right to be offended too when I see such hatred, corruption and bigotry on the part of so-called "Christians".

I have received hundreds of letters of support from loving Christians who feel the same way I do --- who are secretly afraid to speak out, and are astounded at how these right-wingers such as Pat Robertson & Tim LaHaye have completely perverted and misunderstood Christ's teachings. We have to speak out and shine a light on this dangerous corruption so the truth comes out. Being human and flawed, maybe I used language that was too provocative; maybe I should have been more bland. But there are lives at stake in this "evangelical misinterpretation" of The Great Peacemaker's teachings. There is more at stake than you know.

SAR said it all perfectly:

"The major planks of the Democratic party are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, environmentalism, universal health care, elder's rights and women's rights.

"I would not think that Jesus would be favorable toward the major planks of the Republican party, now that it has been taken over by the Religious Right --- bigotry, torture, wars based on lies, gay-bashing, elimination of the middle class and the formation of a two-class system: the ultra-rich and the very poor (who are servants of the ultra-rich), the sexual double standard, and the subjugation of women. That all of this is done in Jesus's name would be especially repugnant to him. Dubya Bush, Pat Robertson, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jerry Falwell, et al are actually far closer in spirit to the people who wanted Jesus crucified than to Jesus himself."

"As for liberals robbing your bank account --- wake up! The current RIGHT-WING regime has been robbing your bank account for almost six years, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and for this needless, wasteful war in Iraq, the rationale for which shifts weekly."

Is killing pro-life? Killing abortion doctors and carpet bombing Iraqi children as well as sending our most valuable young soldiers to die in an unnecessary war --- and retaliating (retaliation is the very OPPOSITE of all Christ's most important teaching) in a rush to war based on a lie? Please go to my website for some amazing debate and commentary on the "new evangelicals" --- there are some scholars there who know much about Biblical history. And by the way, the kingdom of heaven is within us all --- we are all God's children, made of love. What I expressed in my article is desire to find the common ground between the parties. And to stop the war in human hearts. To call Ann Coulter on her hate-speak is a step in the right direction. As Edmund Burke said: "Evil triumphs when good people do nothing."

The ACLU does not "persecute" people of Western faith or the Boy Scouts. It fights for the civil rights of all individuals, including bigoted hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh (it's currently defending him) as well as homosexuals who are being discriminated against by the Boy Scouts for no reason other than sheer homophobia.
-SAR

The ACLU (Anti Christ Liberal Union) was founded in 1917 by Roger “War is Never the Answer” Baldwin, an atheist and avid communist party member, who spent a year in jail for opposing the United States’ proud contribution in defense of freedom at the beginning of the 20th century. Despite Baldwin’s traitorous efforts, Kaiser Wilhelm and his fellow vicious tyrants were defeated by the courageous Allies in WWI. Baldwin continued to preside over the ACLU until 1950 while attempting to hide its communist and socialist leanings.

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…
-Article I, U.S. Constitution

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law that abridges what people say or think, no matter how unpopular their views may be. But the ACLU aggressively attacks freedom of speech in our schools and workplaces, under the guise of fighting racial and sexual harassment. Many productive organizations have collectively been shaken down for millions upon millions of dollars for failing to prevent sensitive, helpless adults from being “offended” in the workplace.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
-Article II, U.S. Constitution

The ACLU, staunch, even-handed defenders of all Constitutional protections, is officially “neutral” regarding protecting the second amendment. Apparently, the ACLU is confused about whether the rights of “the people” actually refers to private citizens, as it does everywhere else in the Constitution, or only state police and military “people”—in other words, in this particular case only, the word "people" actually means “the government”. No doubt a disarmed American citizenry would be far easier to destroy from within by the socialists.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
-Article I, U.S. Constitution

In an avalanche of lawsuits, the ACLU has interpreted this clearly worded Constitutional protection of religion from federal government, as license to remove all traditional religious expression from the public square. In its place they have sought to establish the morally bankrupt religion of Secular Humanism. The ACLU has fought the right of parents to keep pornography out of the hands of children. The ACLU has waged war against the Boy Scouts not because of “its sheer homophobia” but because the Scouts don't believe it makes much common sense to allow gay scoutmasters to go on overnight camping trips with little boys. To be consistent, maybe the ACLU will begin forbidding the Girl Scouts from banning heterosexual men from taking a bunch of 11 year old little girls into the woods for an overnight camp out. The "noble" ACLU has furiously defended the right of the national man boy love association (NAMBLA) to advocate child molestation. Excuse me while I barf.

No sir SAR, the ACLU does not fight for my rights, nor does it “fight for the civil rights of all individuals”, but rather this litigious, hypocritical, disgusting darling of all good liberals, despises everything good and decent about the United States and its citizens. But obviously the shysters of the ACLU are your heroes, “SAR”.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
-Edmund Burke

So glad to know you too are fond of that Burke quote, Ms. Cornell. But obviously we have different ideas about who is on the side of evil. The Boy Scouts and the NRA get a big chunk my charitable contributions. While you proly relish contributing to the ACLU, Conservatives do not intend to allow these slimeballs to triumph. Maybe liberals’ hearty embrace of the ACLU, rather than Ann Coulter’s "propaganda", has more to do with the reason that “’liberal’ has become a dirty word”.

The ACLU is a touchy subject but there's this guy, this scholar who seems to have all the answers in depth to questions like these --- he comments to right-wing Christians and Bush supporters over at Ms. Cornell's blog www.lydiacornell.com He had a 5 day marathon with a right-wing guy named Steve and what happened was amazing at the end.

How do two intelligent people study the same facts and arrive at opposite conclusions?

I submit that each person begins with a set of core values which comprise a particular world view. Therefore my conclusion may differ from yours because we each start with, and build upon, a different premise. Politically, Conservatives and Liberals have polar opposite world views and each must subjectively distort facts to fit into that world view. Both world views cannot be correct, although some combination may be possible. How are Conservative and Liberal world views different?

Conservatives are optimists who see the glass as half full. They are amazed at the prosperity and accomplishments of their civilization. They are like the new immigrant who can hardly believe his good fortune at living in a western country like America. They are like the star-crossed lover who sees only the good in his beloved amour, and overlooks her faults. They are like the loving mother who only sees the goodness in her child. Conservatives see each day as a wonderful blessing; for them life is a sacred gift from the Creator.

Liberals are pessimists who see the same glass as half empty. They see nothing but society’s faults and want to reform it into their own unrealistic utopia controlled by self-anointed Liberal elites. They have only contempt for their ancestors who sacrificed and innovated to bring about the freedom and wonder we see all around us. They are envious of others who have more than they have; they see each day as something to endure; many seek to escape life through television and drug addiction. They are unmoved at the spectacle of immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, and elsewhere, desperately risking their very lives to experience the same prosperity we take for granted in America. Liberals are like the spoiled child who sees only his parent’s faults.

Conservatives believe in the basic goodness of the average person; they trust most people to behave decently and honorably. But they feel betrayed if someone violates that trust; they view criminal behavior as the exception which must be dealt with harshly. Conservatives identify with achievers and winners. Conservatives view people as individuals, each with virtually unlimited potential.

Liberals believe that they alone are wise and good, but that most people are fundamentally bad. Therefore a strong government must allow elite rulers like themselves to pass laws to micro-manage the behavior of benighted common folks. Liberals identify with victims and losers; they believe social problems are created by "society"; rarely is a crime the fault of the actual perpetrator. This is why they find creative excuses for criminal behavior. Liberals do not trust average folks to do the right thing. They do not trust private citizens to responsibly own firearms; they don't trust parents to responsibly raise their own children. Liberals see people less as individuals with free will, and more as members indistinct from their “group”; the potential of each member is limited to the inherent characteristics of the group; the “good” groups deserve preferential government treatment over the “bad” groups. So “Affirmative Action” is the Liberal solution to the “racism and bigotry” inherent in the “bad” groups. For Liberals, hypocritically discriminating on the basis of such superficial characteristics as race and gender, is fine as long as it favors the “good” groups. Liberals see themselves as puppeteers who must orchestrate the behavior of villains and victims as in a children’s melodrama.

Many Conservatives see themselves as warriors in a battle between folks with traditional Judeo-Christian values, and those with a secular humanist agenda. For Conservatives perhaps the most important human trait is “individual responsibility”—meaning that each sane adult is personally responsible for choosing his own happiness. Pursuit of truth and freedom are also extremely important to Conservatives. They are vital because the capacity for free-will is the primary characteristic which separates humanity from the rest of Creation. Exercising free-will, only possible in an environment of personal and economic freedom, is essential to achieving human happiness. Similarly, only based upon truth, will a person make wise choices. Only based upon truth is it possible to establish justice. A social environment characterized by justice and freedom allows individuals to dare to take risks, unleash their creativity, build prosperity and achieve greatness as a people.

Liberals seek to unravel the fabric of traditional Judeo-Christian society. At best, they see western culture as equal to all other cultures; at worst, they hold it in utter contempt. Liberal anti-war demonstrations, like those at Berzerkely, are like an asylum which opens its gates releasing a parade of assorted eyebrow-piercing loonies, self-loathing America-haters, insane scrotum inflators, drug addled criminals, pathetic prostitutes, transvestites, socialists, communists, and wahhabi sympathizing “Zionist”-haters—in other words, the Democrat party base. For Liberals the most important human trait is “tolerance”—meaning "open-minded" acceptance of any bonehead idea as long as it is not a Conservative one. While Liberals give lip service to “tolerance”, they hypocritically strive to silence all “hate speech"--which means any ideas which challenge their own. Liberals are quick to embrace any specious statement or goofy conspiracy theory as long as it reinforces their world view. The concept of “truth” is troublesome and somewhat confusing to Liberals; consistent scrutiny of facts has a way of interfering with their world view.

Most Conservatives have a pretty realistic view of humanity. While they understand that a person will consistently do what is in his own self-interest, a person whose life is founded upon Christ’s Golden Rule will not steal from others. As optimists, Conservatives view poverty as a temporary condition which will improve as a person embraces individual responsibility and to the extent that a country implements Free Enterprise. Conservatives believe that charity towards poor folks should be the choice of generous individuals, not the mandated role of government. By embracing Free Enterprise, which encourages the free exchange of goods and services for others of like kind, countries such as the U.S. and Hong have released an economic juggernaut which is producing great prosperity for all citizens who choose to participate.

Liberals are very concerned about the “gap between the haves and the have-nots”. They believe that some people are poor because they have been purposely “oppressed” by successful people. They believe that economic success has little to do with creativity and hard work, but just magically happens as a result of chance—“life’s lottery”. Liberals have a child-like ignorance of the economics of supply and demand; they see wealth as a static pie to be distributed equally among everyone by government bureaucrats. They want to remove any incentives for productive people to create wealth, so everyone can be equally destitute. While Liberals are very concerned that everyone has a job, they do everything in their power to punish and shackle employers and corporations, which they regard as inherently evil. Ignoring the dismal failures of socialist experiments from Cuba to the Soviet Union, they want to use government force to ensure that everyone has equal economic outcomes. Although they cannot point to a single example of a country in which socialism has actually worked, Liberals still want to force their socialist “utopia” upon their unwilling subjects.

Liberals consider folks with traditional values to be evil schemers or ignorant hicks. Most Liberals do not like to admit that they are indeed Liberals. They tend to say things like labels are meaningless while freely branding their opponents as wing-nuts, neo-cons, fascists, and racists. Liberals favor the label “Progressive”, as if a slow decline into anarchy, poverty and decadence were “progress”. I have asserted that, to be a Liberal, one must be dishonest, insane, intellectually lazy, or some combination. Perhaps it is the twisted Liberal philosophy itself, rather than the vast “right-wing conspiracy” which has made “Liberal” into such a dirty word.

The frustrating problem for Liberals is that most people are optimistic and therefore tend to be Conservative. Also, Liberals tend to become Conservative as they become older and wiser. I am optimistic that you Liberals will eventually become Conservative. I am also optimistic about 2006 and beyond. Happy New Year everyone!

Very nice "Jesus Christo". You are posing as Christ like any "good Christian" would. But you're right, it is Dubya who is shameful, not you.

Of course I realize that all generalizations are necessarily false including this one. But no one could attempt a meaningful conversation without using some. True I have identified the worst characteristics of my opponents to create a sort of chimera. Obviously not all liberals have all these characteristics, but how many care to distance themselves from or denounce their worst elements? Do you?

There is nothing wrong with embracing righteous anger. To a Liberal, everything a Conservative says is branded as "hate speech". Is a Liberal guilty of "hate speech" when he calls our president Chimpy McHitler? When he calls his opponents racists and nazis without any basis whatsoever?

Some people are worthy of hatred, like the traitors in the pogroms who sold out their Jewish neighbors to the nazis, or the vichy french who betrayed their friends and families, or george galloway and jane fonda who encourage our enemies to kill their own countrymen. To the extent that you can wink at such fetid excuses for humanity, you are a liberal and worthy of my utter total disgust.

Prove me wrong. Instead of hypocritically criticizing my generalities with your own generalities, challenge something specific that I've said. Let's play if you have the balls for it. All your buddies have run away with their tails between their legs, but who knows maybe you'll win the debate. However I would prefer if you would change your offensive nic out of respect for real Christians.

And I see both liberals and conservatives as God's children. The mere fact that you state everything in such polar opposite terms, means you have so much blind anger inside you --- it's primitive and hateful. But God still loves you. You see the world as "us agasint Them." This is not the way a God of Love would see the world.

You are stating cliche points passed down by your prejudice. The current president has twisted even the good name of Republicans. This is the most shameful administration in this blessed country's history. God Bless America.

Speaking of Anne, I don't condone her comments. Although I have never registered as a Republican, my basic instincts are conservative as to international matters and financial ones. However my ideas concerning the treament of people overides any conservative ideas.
Ann Coulter is a political talking head and uses whatever means suits her aims. No Integrity, at the flapping of her gums she implies support the troops, out of her other mouth she says to a Vietnam Vet on Fox .. no wonder we lost that war with YOU people fighting it. As if she would have any concept of what fighting the Vietnam war was like. She is irrelevant, however there are people of the opposite political persuasion that are likewise irrelevant. Neither side can be trusted to have integrity. This according to some was the reason that Rome fell. History repeats itself, there has been no genetic change in the human race.

I can't believe anyone would think Jesus would want anything to do with modern liberals. They support promiscuity, nearly all types of sexual perversion, convenience abortion, true hatred for dissenters, mindless moral relativism, profanity of the worst type, the vilest pornography, self-worship, drug abuse, rebellion, pagan religions, hatred of the military and our country, and socialism, including the notion that "religion is the opiate of the masses." And they devote a sizable portion of their time to "debunking" Christianity and fighting to weaken it.

On the other hand, what are Christians guilty of? Criticizing immoral behavior, basically. Liberals call this "judgment," as though the Lord expected Christians to go through life terrified of remarking on error. The Biblical admonition against judgment refers to self-righteousness, not the helpful practice--followed by Jesus and the Apostles--of pointing out that people are doing bad things. Jesus said, "Go and sin no more," not, "What you did was not a sin." Note the difference. Jesus EXPECTED us to criticize sin; He just wanted us to do it with humility.

Karla, don't waste your time, people like that don't read the Bible, they just repeat what has been told to them. It's clear as a bell when you see someone misquote Christ, it shows that they NEVER read that chapter.

Robert Lockwood Mills talks about not accepting the Bible literally, then says "we haven't accepted his (Jesus') message of peace yet." Robert, the only record we have pertaining to anything J said or did is the New Testament part of the Bible! Jesus himself wrote not ONE WORD of the bible, nor did he proofread or edit anything.
Paul is the real founder of Christianity, and he was essentially a PR man for a mythical, mystical Jesus/Yahweh hybrid man/god.
Any comments attributed to Jesus(Yeshua) were written by people who TELL US this is what Jesus said, even though they had no firsthand knowledge or experience of Jesus.
Martin

[[[The major planks of the Republican Party are not to wantonly torture and gay bash along with other horrible things.]]]]

So why do they do it?

[[[Do you honestly think people get together and plot how to make others more oppressed and concurrently practice their evil laughs?]]]

No, I don't think it's that well-organized.

[[[That is ridiculous. And for liberals to continue to argue that people are so horrible based on their personal look is hilarious. Honestly, do you have anything better then she is horse faced?]]]

Actually, I said a lot more than that, but you chose to ignore it like a typical right-winger.

[[[At least come up with something funny, so we can laugh as well.]]]

OK. She's a 50 lb. hermaphrodite. I'm not sure which is bigger: her Adam's Apple or her penis. She looks like a 10-dollar crack whore

[[[You must see your moronic argument for what it is, since Anne]]]

You can't even spell her name properly. It is Ann. There is no e on the end.

[[[says many times in her books and articles that the only argument you have as a group is that Republicans are ugly, gross, stupid, smell, are Nazi’s and really, really, really, really mean.]]]

You are absolutely pathetic, just like Ann. Ann says nothing in her books or columns except that liberals are stupid (while claiming that's all they do to conservatives), that liberals are ugly and smelly and hate America. All she does is puke out her sick, hate-filled, illogical thoughts.

You cannot refute any of the claims I made, so you ignore them, then accuse me of doing what your repulsive goddess regularly does. It's called projection. Ann specializes in it, and so do her pathetic followers.

I'm tired of hearing the words god, christian or jesus used in any discusion about politics period. To think that 90% of the world belives mythologys is freakin mind boggling. To say our society has evolved over the last 1000 years is a lie because the majority of people in the world believe that the sacrament is real, cows are holy, Ala will praise you for blowing yourself up or that the summer solstace will bring about harmony.

Religion is nothing more than a control mechanism for the masses and a way for people to not be afraid of dying and just rotting in the ground. I'm dumbfounded to see that people still believe in a bunch of stories written by other, less intelligent men, about stuff that makes D&D seem believable. I'm suprised I haven't seen people running around in capes talking about their level 20 evangelical wizard lords while rolling dice to see if the the dungeon master god won't give them another turn. ("I've got boots of escaping!")

To believe anything related to a religion in a serious manner is laughable, no, its sad. For a long time I thought psychics were total bs until I started reading about police forces using them succesfully and regularly. Until someone shows me even one tiny little fact that might make any religion believable its always going to be a fantasy, parables and wives tales passed down generation after gullable generation.

If the majority of this country was suddenly hindu you damn well better believe that bush and every other politician would instantly start preaching about its beliefs. All in all I'm sickened to think that so many bright minds are wasted utterly and completely on garbage like the mythologys of today, they run the world and everyone in it like a shepard with his sheep just by simply saying the words god or ala in a speech. Your being hand fed your beliefs by these people and yet you take it, in my opinion its an illness.

I mean if Bush stood up and started saying that the aliens are the ones helping us beat the terrorists everyone would look at him like hes insane, but jesus and friends, well damn, thats TRUE. For once I'd just like for people to take a step back, get their heads out of their back ends and look at what religion really is, nothing more than a way for the elite of the world to make sure you don't make a stir, because if your not on Bush's side then your against god himself, and this goes for every other country in the world, well, maybe not bhutan

I think Karl Marx sums it up best referring to religion, "It is the opium of the people" "...religion is something that the oppressed people cling to and delude themselves with simply because they have no idea of the real causes and solutions to their suffering. These causes and solutions are economic." (Wikipedia, opium of the people) And the leaders of the world are doing a damn good job of getting you high.

#43 - I know this is is petty but if you are going to take part in an educated discussion, please learn how to spell. We would not be confused by your reference to Lenin if you spelled it correctly.

#45 - This always seems to come out of some conservative's mouth how because someone is in show business they should have no opinion on politics. Just because someone appears on TV or in a movie doesn't automatically mean that they are too uneducated to have any opinion about the "real" world.

#60 - I really like how you have defended this war by saying that it was a necessary evil to defeat the oppressive regime that raped and murdered innocent people. Most conservatives choose to forget that the original reason that Bush & Co. gave for war was the "advanced WMD facilities and stockpiles" and to bring to justice those responsible for 9/11. It is only after those accusations were found to be totaly false that Bush decided to say that the plight of the Iraqis was driving force to "liberate" Iraq.